Koeplin

Koeplin v. Klotz

Good Law
265 F. Supp. 3d 1039
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 2017Case No. 17-cv-01530-DMRCalifornia2,936 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ryu, J.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

Re: Dkt. No.

This case arises under thé Employee Retirement Income' Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiff Linda' Koeplin filed this suit against Defendants Bayside Solutions Long-Term Incentive & 401(k) Restoration 'Plan and Robert Klotz, an. individual, asserting an ERISA claim for benefits. Defendants answered and counterclaimed against Koeplin. Koeplin now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss1 Defendants’ first amended counterclaim.' [Docket No. 23.] *1040 This matter is appropriate for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7 — 1(b). For the following reasons, Koeplin’s motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

In this action, Koeplin brings a single claim under ERISA for benefits she claims she is owed under the terms of the Bay-side Solutions Long-Term Incentive & 401 (k) Restoration Plan (“Bayside Plan” or “the Plan”). [Docket No. 15 (First Amended Complaint).] Defendants and counter-claimants Bayside Plan and Klotz make the following allegations in their first amended counterclaim, all of which are taken as true solely for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.