CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RUTH MAE CHELF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant,

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE ASSOCIATES’ HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-6097
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:17-cv-00736—Gregory N. Stivers, District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 12, 2022
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Elmer Chelf, a former employee of Wal-Mart, was on long-term disability leave when he passed away. His widow, Ruth Mae Chelf, was denied benefits under his work-based optional term life insurance policy. She brought claims against Wal-Mart and the Plan Administrator (collectively, Wal-Mart) for breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461 (ERISA). Her suit alleges that Wal-Mart breached its fiduciary duty to Mr. Chelf in several ways, including by assessing certain premiums in error; by failing to inform him that his premiums were assessed in error; by failing to remit premiums to Prudential to cover his optional life insurance policy resulting in that policy’s termination; by failing to inform Mr. Chelf that his accrued paid time off (PTO) could cover his life insurance premiums; and by failing to notify him of his right to convert his term life insurance policy. Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted, dismissing Ms. Chelf’s fiduciary breach claims with prejudice. We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KEVIN LINDKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN D. TOMLINSON and MAT KING, in their official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 21-2612
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-12857—Sean F. Cox, Chief District Judge.
Argued: January 26, 2022
Decided and Filed: April 12, 2022
Before: GRIFFIN, DONALD, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

Plaintiff Kevin Lindke and his ex-girlfriend, Ami Moeller, engaged in a contentious child custody dispute, during which Moeller obtained a domestic personal protection order (PPO) against Lindke. After she sued Lindke for violating that PPO, defendant Judge John Tomlinson, a Michigan probate court judge, agreed and ruled in her favor. Rather than appeal that determination in Michigan state court, Lindke sued Judge Tomlinson and county sheriff Mat King in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin enforcement of Michigan’s domestic PPO statute. The district court dismissed the case, concluding that no subject-matter jurisdiction existed in the case against Judge Tomlinson and that Lindke failed to state a claim against Sheriff King. We agree and affirm.