green
Positive treatment
Trending · 100 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
53.2 score
“he successor judge may examine the trial transcript as if it were 'supporting affidavits' for summary judgment purposes and enter summary judgment if no credibility determinations are required.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Bank of Louisiana v. Aetna US Hlthcare
But cf. Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir. 2001) (checks for stop- 11 A party acts in a fiduciary capacity when he: 1) exercises discretionary control over plan assets; 2) he renders investment advice for a fee to the plan; or 3) he has discretionary responsibility with regard to plan administration. 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (21)(A); see also Tri-State Mach., Inc. v. Nationwide Life Ins.
cited
Cited "but see"
Bank of Louisiana v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. Aetna Life Insurance Company
But cf. Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir.2001) (checks for stop4oss benefits are plan assets).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Bank of Louisiana v. Aetna US Healthcare Inc.
(2×)
But cf. Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir.2001) (checks for stop-loss benefits are plan assets). 15 Aetna identifies no cases holding that a stop-loss insurer is necessarily a plan fiduciary.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Erpelding v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.
See Ariz. State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Citibank, 125 F.3d 715 , 721-22 (9th Cir.1997) (ministerial tasks such as analyzing delinquency information and alerting outside persons about potential discrepancies are not enough to make third party administrator a fiduciary); Rutledge v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 201 F.3d 1212, 1220 (9th Cir.2000) (attorney rendering only legal and consulting advice to the plan is not a fiduciary unless he or “she exercises authority over the plan in a manner other than by usual professional function” (internal quotation marks omitted)) am…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baker v. CA School Employees Assoc.
a party defending a rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate 25 document and safe harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
MOORE v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC
he successor judge may examine the trial transcript as if it were 'supporting affidavits' for summary judgment purposes and enter summary judgment if no credibility determinations are required.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cash Cloud, INC. v. Christopher Mcalary
Rather, the request sought sanctions under Rule 11’s textual parallel to Rule 9011(b) and alleged that the opposing party’s filing was sanctionable as “frivolous.” See Patelco, 19 262 F.3d at 903, 913 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steinmeyer v. American Association of Blood Banks
“A 6 party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate document and safe 7 harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 8 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 II.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tahmisian v. Netacent, Inc.
“While it is true that a party’s failure to object to evidence regarding an unpleaded issue may be evidence of implied consent to a trial of the issue, it must appear that the party understood the evidence was introduced to prove the unpleaded issue.” Rosenbaum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142 , 1151 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Consol.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ewing v. Freedom Forever, LLC
“A 23 party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate document and safe 24 harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 25 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001). 26 II.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Thomas Bryon Cattell
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B&G Foods North America, Inc. v. Embry
The filing of a motion under Rule 11 is also subject to sanctions if the motion itself 21 violates the rule, and “[a] party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate 22 document and safe harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.” Patelco Credit Union 23 v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Now-Casting Economics, LTD. v. Economic Alchemy LLC
“Although [EA] has not filed a separate cross-motion for sanctions and has not afforded [Now-Casting] 21 days after service of such a motion to withdraw its submissions, ‘[a] party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate document and safe harbor provision when counter-requesting sanctions.’” Safe-Strap Co. v. Koala Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 407, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (final alteration in original) (quoting Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amaro v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.
However, a “party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate 11 document and safe harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.” Patelco Credit Union 12 v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001). 13 In its reply, Bee Sweet argues that Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is improper because 14 Plaintiffs did not file a separate motion and follow the procedural requirements of the 21-day Safe 15 Harbor provision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dragasits v. Rucker
(ECF 60.) A court may deny a motion to compel 17 when “failure to obtain the requested documents is due to [the movant’s] own lack 18 of diligence.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001); see also 19 Mir v. Kirchmeyer, No. 312CV02340GPCDHB, 2017 WL 164086 , at *6 (S.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Penwell v. Providence Health & Services
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th 13 Cir. 2001) (finding that a Department of Labor advisory opinion is not binding 14 authority).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Brooks v. Agate Resources, Inc.
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the standard of review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Park Assist, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
P. 11(c)(2). 2 || However, “[a] party defending a Rule 11 motion need not comply with the separate 3 ||document and safe harbor provisions when counter-requesting sanctions.” Patelco Credit 4 || Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joaquim Finato v. Keith Fink and Associates
Cf. Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding the defendants’ Rule 37 motion was, “in essence, a motion to compel discovery from plaintiffs,” and thus any “failure to obtain the requested documents [was] due to [defendants’] own lack of diligence” in not filing a motion to compel).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Masonry Training and Education Foundation v. Hawaii Masons' Training Fund
Under ERISA: a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent he exercises any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control respecting management or disposition of its assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1002 (21)(A)(i). “‘Any’ control over disposition of plan money makes the person who has the control a fiduciary.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 909 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting IT Corp. v. Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McMaken v. GreatBanc Trust Company
E.g., Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding an ERISA § 406(b)(1) violation where a health and medical benefit plan fiduciary paid for insurance to cover certain claims under the plan and then charged premiums to the plan’s sponsor that exceeded what the fiduciary paid); O’Neill v. Davis, 721 F. Supp. 1013 , 1014–16 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R. Alexander Acosta v. Scott Brain
Cf. Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 843 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing breach of fiduciary duty claim for “failure to exercise prudence” in monitoring and managing plan investments); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 909 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing breach of fiduciary duty claim for self-dealing in plan administration).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lance & Linda Neibauer Joint Trust Ex Rel. Neibauer v. Kurgan
P. 37(a)(5)(A) (district court must require the party whose conduct necessitated a successful motion to compel to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the party’s nondisclosure was substantially justified); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Insurance
(2×)
The court has determined that other cases that examined “the applicability of § 1108 to § 1106(b) are in accord that reasonable compensation does not apply to fiduciary self-dealing.” Patelco, 262 F.3d at 911 (collecting cases).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soicher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Co., 536 P.2d 863, 866 (Colo.App.1975) (not published pursuant to CAR. see also Miller v. Mills Constr., Inc., 352 F.3d 1166, 1171 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that an issue was tried by implied consent when one party argued the issue and introduced evidence related to it and the opposing party did not object); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that a party's failure to object to evidence regarding an un-pleaded issue may be evidence of implied consent to try that issue, but it must appear that the party understood that the evidence was being introduced to prov…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trustees of the Painters Local 1011 Health Reimbursement Arrangement Fund v. Anderson
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 910 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Board of Internal Med v. Bradley Mittman
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenn Tibble v. Edison International
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 903, 908.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Meléndez Vega v. Vocero de Puerto Rico, Inc.
Véanse: Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 906 (9no Cir. 2001) (“‘[T]he successor judge may examine the trial transcript as if it were ‘supporting affidavits’ for summary judgment purposes and enter summary judgment if no credibility determinations are required” (corchetes en el original)), citando 12 Moore’s Federal Practice Sec. 63.05[3] (3ra ed. 1999); Mergentime Corp. v. WMATA, 166 F.3d 1257 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Henry A. Knott Co. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tibble v. Edison International
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 903, 908 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenn Tibble v. Edison International
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 903, 908.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeFazio v. Hollister, Inc.
“In determining the amount that a breaching fiduciary must restore to the [ERISA plan] as a result of a prohibited transaction, the court ‘should resolve doubts in favor of the plaintiffs.’ ” Kim, 871 F.2d at 1430-31 ; accord Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Gilley, 290 F.3d 827, 830 (6th Cir.2002) (“[T]o the extent that there is any ambiguity in determining the amount of loss in an ERISA action, the uncertainty should be resolved against the breaching fiduciary.”); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912 (9th Cir.2001). 34 In finding that defendants breached their duti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States
See, e.g., Faifams v. Citizens Bank and Trust of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558, 568 (7th Cir.2006) (affirming a trial court’s determination that defendant’s affirmative defense was not raised, where the testimony purportedly raising the defense was also relevant to a properly pled issue); Patel-co Credit Union v. Salmi, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir.2001) ("The introduction of evidence that directly addresses a pleaded issue does not put the opposing party on notice that an unpleaded issue is being raised.”); Douglas v. Owens, 50 F.3d 1226, 1236 (3d Cir.1995) ("[A]n issue [is] not ... tried by impl…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Erickson v. ING Life Insurance & Annuity Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 107 F.3d 1415, 1421-1422 (9th Cir.1997); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni 262 F.3d 897, 909 (9th Cir.2001); (Yeseta v. Baima, 837 F.2d 380, 386 (9th Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruppert Ex Rel. Fairmount Park, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Principal Life Insurance
See, e.g., Kanawi, 590 F.Supp.2d at 1223 (“ERISA § 408’s exemptions do not apply to violations of § 406(b)’s prohibition on self-dealing.”); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir.2001) (“We conclude that the reasonable compensation provision does not apply to fiduciary self-dealing; ...
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamby v. Morgan Asset Management, Inc.
(2×)
(Id. at 44) (citing Lowen v. Tower Asset Mgmt., 829 F.2d 1209 , 1213 (2d Cir.1987).); see also Kalda v. Sioux Valley Physician Partners, Inc., 481 F.3d 639, 647 (8th Cir.2007) (plan assets “include amounts that participants pay to an employer or have withheld from their wages for contribution to a plan.” (citation omitted)); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir.2001) (plan assets include “item[s that may] ... be used to the benefit (financial or otherwise) of the fiduciary at the expense of the plan participants or beneficiaries” (internal quotation marks and citat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Regions Morgan Keegan Erisa Litigation
(2×)
(Pl.'s Resp. to Regions Defs. 47.) Plaintiffs note that, although ERISA does not define plan assets, courts have repeatedly decided that the term is to be broadly construed. ( Id. at 44) (citing Lowen v. Tower Asset Mgmt., 829 F.2d 1209 , 1213 (2d Cir.1987).); see also Kalda v. Sioux Valley Physician Partners, Inc., 481 F.3d 639, 647 (8th Cir.2007) (plan assets "include amounts that participants pay to an employer or have withheld from their wages for contribution to a plan." (citation omitted)); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir.2001) (plan assets include "item[s that …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Haddock v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.
In Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 910-12 (9th Cir.2001), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the reasonable compensation off-set provision in 29 U.S.C. § 1108 (c)(2), 21 does not apply to violations of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104 (a) (breach of the general duty of loyalty) or 1106(b) (fiduciary self-dealing).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Tibble v. Edison International
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Section 1106(b) “creates a per se ERISA violation; even the absence of bad faith, or in the presence of a fair and reasonable transaction, [§ 1106(b) ] establishes a blanket prohibition of certain acts, easily applied, in order to facilitate Congress’ remedial interest in protecting employee benefit plans.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Seattle Art Museum
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Seattle Art Museum
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Segovia v. Shoenmann
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 908 (9th Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
ERISA § 406(b) “creates a per se ERISA violation; even in the absence of bad faith, or in the presence of a fair and reasonable transaction, [ERISA 406(b) ] establishes a blanket prohibition of certain acts, easily applied, in order to facilitate Congress’ remedial interest in protecting employee benefit plans.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir.2001) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golden Gate Restaurant v. City and County of San Francisco
Employers’ Administrative Obligations, and the Ability to Ascertain Benefits, Beneficiaries, Financing and Procedures The first element of an employee welfare benefit plan is the existence of a “plan, fund or program.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Employers’ Administrative Obligations, and the Ability to Ascertain Benefits, Beneficiaries, Financing and Procedures [3] The first element of an employee welfare benefit plan is the existence of a “plan, fund or program.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Research Corp. v. Westport Insurance
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(b); Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 907 (9th Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Eon-Net Lp v. Flagstar Bancorp
(3×)
“A district court abuses its discretion in imposing sanctions when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kuch v. United States
Patelco Credit Union v. Sahni, 262 F.3d 897, 906 (9th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elliot M. Katz in Defense of Animals
v.
United States of America Corbin Lee, Major Brian O'Neill Steven Parker, Sergeant Glynn C. Mallory, Jr., General, and Donald Saucier, Private
v.
United States of America Corbin Lee, Major Brian O'Neill Steven Parker, Sergeant Glynn C. Mallory, Jr., General, and Donald Saucier, Private
98-16298.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 23, 2001.
Published
262 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2001)
ELLIOT M. KATZ; IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CORBIN LEE, MAJOR; BRIAN O'NEILL; STEVEN PARKER, SERGEANT; GLYNN C. MALLORY, JR., GENERAL, DEFENDANTS, AND DONALD SAUCIER, PRIVATE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 98-16298
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Filed August 23, 2001
[*~897]1
Before: David R. Thompson and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Earl H. Carroll, District Judge.[1]
ORDER
[*~913]2
By the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. ___, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001), the judgment of this court, 194 F.3d 962, is reversed. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying the defendant Saucier's motion for summary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
Notes:
1
The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.