Friday, January 15, 2010

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In An ERISA Case, An Eleventh Circuit Case & Three Others

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today, including one from the Eleventh Circuit and one relating to ERISA.  The SCOTUS Blog's summary is below:
Docket: 09-337

Title: Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.

Issue: Whether Fed. R. Cir. P. 15(c)(1)(C) – which permits an amended complaint to “relate back,” for limitation purposes, when the amendment corrects a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity” – permits “mistakes” where the plaintiff had imputed knowledge of the identity of the added defendant prior to filing suit.
Docket: 09-448

Title: Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Issues: (1) Whether ERISA § 502(g)(1) provides a district court with discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees only to a prevailing party; and (2) whether a party is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 502(g)(1) when she persuades a district court that a violation of ERISA has occurred, successfully secures a judicially ordered remand requiring a redetermination of entitlement to benefits, and subsequently receives the benefits sought on remand.

Docket: 09-475

Title: Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms

Issues: (1) Whether plaintiffs under the National Environmental Policy Act are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction; (2) whether a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction that sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm.

Docket: 09-497

Title: Rent-A-Car, West, Inc. v. Jackson

Issue: Whether the district court is in all cases required to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision.

Docket: 09-559

Title: John Doe #1 v. Reed

Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers; and (2) whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
The Court's order can be viewed HERE.


Post a Comment