Legal Opinion

Nash v. Pfizer, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois

Decided August 28, 2025No. 3:24-cv-00173Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MARY NASH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:24-CV-173-NJR RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge: With this action, Plaintiff Mary Nash seeks statutory civil penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Nash claims that Defendant Retirement Committee, as Plan Administrator of the Pfizer Consolidated Pension Plan, failed to timely provide her with Plan documents as required under ERISA. Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. 188 LLC v. Trinity Industries, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
  5. Osama Taha v. International Brotherhood of TCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API