Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-3798

In an ERISA action claiming that defendant benefit plan administrator (Wal-Mart) failed adequately to evaluate the investment options included in the plan, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) the district court erred by conflating the issue of plaintiff's Article III standing with his potential personal causes of action under ERISA; and 2) the district court erred by ignoring reasonable inferences supported by the facts alleged and drawing inferences in defendants' favor, faulting plaintiff for failing to plead facts tending to contradict those inferences.

Read Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-3798

Appellate Information

Submitted: September 24, 2009

Filed: November 25, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Murphy