Shapiro v. Fid. Invs. Institutional Operations Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Carroll v. Cent. Pension Fund

    1:23-cv-00076 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2024)

    Plaintiff must clearly show that he is entitled to benefits under the plain terms of the CFP plan. See Shapiro v. Fid. Invs. Institutional Operations Co., Inc., 142 F.Supp.3d 535, 541 (E.D. Ky. 2015) (citing Gore v. El Paso Energy Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 477 F.3d 833, 842 (6th Cir.2007)). Plaintiff simply fails to set out allegations that satisfy this showing, and the attachments to his response in opposition to the motion fail to shed any light on the matter.

  2. Clarke v. Pilkington N. Am., Inc.

    No. 21-12119 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 27, 2022)

    Moreover, Clarke is incorrect that the continuing violation theory would erase the “actual knowledge” requirement only in cases where the initial breach is the only breach. See Shapiro v. Fidelity Invs. Institutional Operations Co., 142 F.Supp.3d 535, 540 (E.D. Ky. 2015) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that defendant's failure to fully reimburse his 401(k) retirement account after it allegedly liquidated the account without plaintiff's permission was a separate and ongoing breach, explaining that the allegedly wrongful liquidation of plaintiff's account was a “discrete act” and that “[i]f statutes of limitation did not begin to run until the breaching party made the plaintiff whole, the exception would swallow the rule”)