You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rutledge v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson

Citations: 208 F.3d 1170; 2000 WL 347161Docket: No. 98-15298

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 5, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the court considered allegations against Seyfarth for charging legal fees that exceeded the agreed amount, which was claimed to be a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court had initially ruled that such claims were not preempted by ERISA, but this conclusion was overturned as erroneous. The case involved procedural developments where the panel unanimously denied the petition for rehearing, and there was no support among the judges for an en banc rehearing. Consequently, the petition for rehearing was denied, and the suggestion for en banc consideration was rejected. The order also included minor grammatical adjustments to the text of the original opinion issued on January 12, 2000. This decision underscores the significance of ERISA’s preemptive authority over state claims regarding plan transactions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Preemption by ERISA

Application: The district court's prior conclusion that claims regarding excessive legal fees were not preempted by ERISA was found to be erroneous.

Reasoning: The district court's prior conclusion that these claims were not preempted is deemed erroneous.

Procedural Decisions on Rehearing

Application: The panel voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Reasoning: The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Wardlaw opposed the suggestion for rehearing en banc, which Judge Byrne recommended rejecting.

Prohibited Transactions under ERISA

Application: The case involves allegations that Seyfarth charged legal fees to the Plans above the agreed amount, which constitutes a prohibited transaction under ERISA.

Reasoning: First, the amendment clarifies that the allegations concerning Seyfarth charging legal fees to the Plans above the agreed amount constitute a prohibited transaction under ERISA.