Engers v. AT&T

2 Citing cases

  1. Shah v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex.

    Civil No. 16-8803(RMB/AMD) (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that a court will not rewrite a plaintiff's complaint to allow it to state a claim

    To remedy these alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks, via ERISA § 102 and 29 C.F.R § 2520.102-2, full reimbursement and equitable relief. Defendant cites to Engers v. AT&T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 234 (D.N.J. 2006) as support for the proposition that ERISA § 102 does not provide a cause of action for its violation. Plaintiff argues that the court in Engers did not foreclose recovery for furnishing a misleading SPD, but rather addressed whether the proper avenue for such recovery was through ERISA § 102 or ERISA § 502, the general ERISA enforcement mechanism.

  2. Shah v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J.

    Civil No. 16-8892 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2018)

    Count Five Must Be Dismissed Because It Is Not A Recognized Cause Of Action.ERISA § 102 does not provide a cause of action for a party's failure to establish a Summary Plan Description. 29 U.S.C. § 1022; Engers v. AT&T, 428 F. Supp. 2d 213, 234 (D.N.J. 2006). Nevertheless, Plaintiff demands monetary relief for Defendant's alleged failure to establish a Summary Plan Description under ERISA § 102.