Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code permits “individual[s] with regular income” whose debt falls within statutory limits, see 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(30), 109(e), to keep their property if they agree to a court-approved plan to pay creditors out of their future “disposable income.” See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1306(b), 1321, 1322(a)(1), 1328(a). However, if a trustee of the plan or an unsecured creditor o... More...   $0 (02-15-2012 - OH)

In this shareholder class action, appellant William D. Stratton, the lead plaintiff and representative of the class members (the Plaintiffs), appeals the trial court’s order awarding $3,972,367.75 in attorneys’ fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

I. Background Facts

In late 2009, ExxonMobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) anno... More...   $8611161 (02-09-2012 - TX)

In this dispute over long-term disability benefits, Kandace Williams appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), AT&T Long Term Disability Plan for Occupational Employees, and AT&T Integrated Disability Service Center. Williams contends the claims administrator of her long-term disability plan abused its discretion because (1) its... More...   $0 (02-07-2012 - CO)

Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Stephen Smith, the beneficiary of an ERISA-governed life insurance policy covering his deceased wife, Stephanie Smith. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of LINA.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi... More...   $0 (02-06-2012 - LA)

Appellant Rick Strandlof was charged under the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which makes it illegal to falsely claim to have received a military award or honor. We must decide whether the Act is constitutional. Answering this question requires us to determine whether, and to what extent, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from punishing knowingly false statements of fact.

Reaso... More...   $0 (01-27-2012 - Co)

Following the 2005 merger between Cinergy Corp. and defendant Duke Energy Corporation, plaintiffs Barbara Gambill and Eric French were terminated during a reduction in force. Gambill and French, who were both over fifty years old at the time of their discharge, allege that Duke terminated them because of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, ... More...   $0 (01-25-2012 - OH)

Plaintiff Jack Leeson (“Leeson”), a former employee of Defendant Transamerica Corporation (“Transamerica”), filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., to challenge the termination of his long-term disability benefits. The district court, applying an abuse of discretion standard of review, upheld the Transamerica Corporatio... More...   $0 (01-23-2012 - WA)

In this appeal, we consider whether state law claims of negligence and negligence per se are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In a recent opinion, Cervantes v. Health Plan of Nevada, 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Adv. Op. No. 70, October 27, 2011), we concluded that these same claims were preempted; however, this is a fact-intensive inquiry because ERISA preemption ... More...   $0 (12-29-2011 - NV)

This is one of those rare ERISA denial of benefits cases in which the plan administrator, The Prudential Life Insurance Company of America, did not reserve to itself discretion as to interpretation and administration of its plan. The benefits at issue are the proceeds of a group life insurance policy (Group Policy) in the sum of $300,000, claimed by the estate of Walter Jajuga, who died on Decembe... More...   $0 (01-11-2012 - MA)

In this domestic relations proceeding, the circuit court in its final order of divorce denied a motion by Cheyep Nkopchieu (mother) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) permitting her to attach a retirement account belonging to Raymond Bernard Minlend (father) for the sole purpose of paying father’s very considerable child support arrearage of over $28,000. On appeal, we hold tha... More...   $0 (12-20-2011 - VA)

Plaintiffs, eight individuals formerly employed by DSM Pharma Chemicals North America, Inc. (“DSM”), appeal the verdict reached by the jury in favor of DSM in their breach-of-contract action, arguing that the district court failed to give an appropriate jury instruction regarding a condition precedent to a contract under Michigan law. In addition, Plaintiffs challenge a ruling denying them att... More...   $0 (12-27-2011 - MI)

When Donald and Elizabeth Molosky paid off their home mortgage early, they were charged a $30 “payoff statement fee” and a $14 “recording fee” in connection with the prepayment. They sued in federal court challenging the imposition of these fees as violations of the mortgage contract, of various Michigan laws, and of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The district c... More...   $0 (12-22-2011 - MI)

After Appellant James McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident, a benefit plan administered by US Airways paid $66,866 for his medical expenses. McCutchen then recovered $110,000 from third parties, with the assistance of counsel. Then US Airways, which had not sought to enforce its subrogation rights, demanded reimbursement of the entire $66,866 it had paid without allowance for McCutchen... More...   $0 (11-16-2011 - PA)

Plaintiff-appellee Robert Milgram filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, Norah Breen. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge) e... More...   $0 (11-29-2011 - NY)

After Appellant James McCutchen suffered a serious automobile accident, a benefit plan administered by US Airways paid $66,866 for his medical expenses. McCutchen then recovered $110,000 from third parties, with the assistance of counsel. Then US Airways, which had not sought to enforce its subrogation rights, demanded reimbursement of the entire $66,866 it had paid without allowance for McCutche... More...   $0 (11-18-2011 - PA)

Plaintiff-Appellant Eugene S. appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to strike and entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (“Horizon BCBSNJ” or “Horizon”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Background

Eugene S. sought coverage for his son A.S.’s residential treatment c... More...   $0 (11-15-2011 - UT)

Dennis Carter began working as a directional driller at Pathfinder Energy Services, Inc., in December 2004. Two years later, after Carter’s declining health had caused a reduction in his workload, Pathfinder fired Carter for “gross misconduct” based primarily on an altercation that he had had with a coworker and his language and attitude during a conversation with his supervisor.

Cart... More...   $0 (11-03-2011 - WY)

2 Plaintiffs-Appellants Patrick L. Gearren, Jan Deperry, Mary
3 Sullivan, Harvey Sullivan, and Cynthia Davis, on behalf of
4 themselves and a putative class of persons similarly situated
5 (“Plaintiffs”), appeal from a decision of the District Court for
6 the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge)
7 granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ ... More...   $0 (10-19-2011 - )

This appeal presents the question of whether a provision of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), preempts Montana’s “little HIPAA” law, Mont. Code Ann. § 33-22-526(2)(a), for purposes of both conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction and defeating state-law causes of action on the merits. The federal and st... More...   $0 (10-18-2011 - MT)

James Riley appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Sun Life in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., benefits case. The sole issue is whether Sun Life is entitled to offset from Riley's employer-provided long-term disability benefits the amount that Riley receives in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits each m... More...   $0 (10-07-2011 - NE)

Caleb Sturge was terminated for cause from his employment with Northwest Airlines, Inc., shortly after he was arrested for possession of marijuana. At the same time, Sturge had pending with Northwest a request for disability retirement benefits. Northwest later granted Sturge’s request, but he was ineligible for certain retirement benefits as a result of the termination. Sturge sued Northwest, c... More...   $0 (10-07-2011 - MN)

Dana Caples (“Caples”) appeals a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Foodservice, Inc. (“USF”), and Hewitt Associates, LLC (“Hewitt”; collectively, “defendants”), alleging that defendants undermined her life insurance claim in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Because the plan administrator relied on substantial evidence when it determine... More...   $0 (10-06-2011 - LA)

Plaintiff-Appellant, Mary Anne Laird (“Laird”) appeals the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Norton Healthcare (“Norton”), Hartford-Comprehensive Employee Benefits Services Company (“Hartford- CEBSCO”), and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford Life”) (collectively, “Defendants”). For the following reasons, we AFF... More...   $0 (10-06-2011 - KY)

In five issues, a media defendant, Appellant Michael Murphy, brings this interlocutory appeal, asserting that the trial court erred by partially denying his motion for summary judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(6) (West 2008). We are constrained to reverse and render.

II. Factual and Procedural History

Appellee Ernest Reynolds, III sued Murphy, a... More...   $0 (09-30-2011 - TX)

Appellants, Mazda Motor Company and Ford Motor Company (“Appellants”), appeal the district court’s order denying their Rule 60(b) motion for the district court to reconsider its previous order remanding the case to state court. In support of their motion, Appellants claimed that, in light of a recent opinion issued by this court clarifying the method for calculating the amount-incontroversy ... More...   $0 (09-23-2011 - AL)