Legal Opinion
Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided October 28, 2016No. Case No. 14-cv-13556PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 68) AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Kimberly Cox and Heather Claus initiated this putative class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq„ alleging that Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) breached its fiduciary duty as a third-party administrator by charging Plaintiffs’ respective ERISA healthcare plans “hidden” fees. BCBSM filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chapman v. National Health Plans & Benefits Agency, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2022
- Kenneth Kring and Elizabeth Kring, individually and on behalf of the Jeld-Wen, Inc. 401(k) Plan and on behalf of all the similarly situated Participants and beneficiaries of the plan v. Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc.; Gallagher Fiduciary Advisors, LLC; The Jeld-Wen Retirement Benefits Administration Committee for the 401(k) Savings Plan; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative CommitteeDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2026
- Navarro v. Wells Fargo & CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2025