Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

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

By FindLaw Staff on November 25, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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


Opinion by Judge Murphy

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard