Legal Opinion
Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 7, 1993No. 92-1879PublishedCited by 131 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SEITZ, Circuit Judge.
Leonard Gillis and Váldo Sargeni (“plaintiffs”) are former employees of the Hoechst Celanese Corporation (“Hoechst”). They allege that Hoechst and the Hoechst Celanese Retirement Plan (“Hoechst . Retirement Plan”) have .failed to comply with certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. They also advance two state law claims.
The district court had jurisdiction over the ERISA claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We have jurisdiction over…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by131 opinions
- Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Linda K. Moothart v. A. Gary Bell, Bradley P. Pollock, Bell & Pollock, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Loren v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Colin v. Marconi Commerce Systems Employees' Retirement PlanDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2004
- McDaniel v. Chevron Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
126 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.