United States Seventh Circuit

In an ERISA case, judgment granting defendant-Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's (MetLife) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against Sharp Electronics (Sharp) is affirmed in part where: 1) the court did not act inconsistently with the law of the case doctrine as its first ruling was not binding, and in any event the case had changed with Sharp's amended cross-complaint against MetLife; 2) ERISA does not impose the type of fiduciary duties alleged and only imposes liability for Plan losses, and not for attorney fees and other costs incurred by Sharp in defending an employee's suit; and 3) the district court did not err when it dismissed Sharp's claim for indemnification. District court's ruling on the merits of state law claims is vacated and remanded so that the dismissal is without prejudice.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/14/2009
• Decided 08/18/2009
• Published 08/18/2009

Judges

• WOOD, Circuit Judge., Before KANNE, ROVNER, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Craig R. Annunziata, Fisher & Phillips, Chicago, IL, Brian K. Lafratta (argued), Fisher & Phillips, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Ian S. Linker (argued), Metlife Group, Incorporated, Long Island City, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.