Raya

Raya v. Barka

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 2, 20203:19-cv-02295California2,523 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

26 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on December 2, 2019. ECF No. 1. 27 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil complaint for statutory 28 penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for failing to provide him with documents describing the Pension Plan; for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a)(l)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(D), and 1105; for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud under California state law; and for ERISA interference under 29 U.S.C. § 1140. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 14), which was granted on June 25, 2020. ECF No. 19. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety and, having notifying Plaintiff of the defects of the pleading as to the dismissed claims, permitted him to file a motion for leave to amend. Id. at 14; ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has since filed his motion for leave to file his first amended complaint (ECF No. 30), but that motion will not be addressed in this Order. II. LEGAL STANDARD There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a…

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.