United States Sixth Circuit

The fact that plaintiffs' complaint referenced actions that ultimately resulted in diminution in value of the assets of plaintiffs' retirement plan does not necessarily vest the federal judiciary with ERISA jurisdiction. Amended complaint actually raised only state-law issues involving the legitimacy of business decisions made by defendants.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/23/2003
• Published 07/23/2003

Judges

• Before:  BOGGS, Chief Judge;  GUY and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Robert A. Steinberg, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.  Robert E. Zimet, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Robert A. Steinberg, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard S. Wayne, Strauss & Troy, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.  Robert E. Zimet, Susan L. Saltzstein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.