LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 4380715
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- RSWL-DFM v. BHASKAR VYAS
- Extracted reporter citation
- 530 U.S. 211
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4380715 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: ERISA / defined contribution issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not "perform[] a fiduciary function" when it took "the action[s] subject to complaint." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a”
retirement benefits“ted March 8, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** Chief District Judge. Plaintiff Sujata Vyas appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Defendants Bhaskar Vyas and Schwab Retirement Plan * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitt”
ERISA“ignation. Services, Inc. ("Schwab"). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. Vyas does not have standing to sue her ex-husband for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab”
domestic relations order“t Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order. See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J). 2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because Schwab did not "perform[] a fiduciary function" when it took "the action[s] subject to complaint." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- reporter: 530 U.S. 211
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUJATA VYAS, Dr., No. 17-56632
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
8:15-cv-02152-RSWL-DFM
v.
BHASKAR VYAS, an individual; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,***
Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Sujata Vyas appeals from the district court's orders granting
summary judgment to Defendants Bhaskar Vyas and Schwab Retirement Plan
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, Chief United States District
Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
Services, Inc. ("Schwab"). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We affirm.
1. Vyas does not have standing to sue her ex-husband for breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
Vyas is not "a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary" of the relevant plan. See 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). Vyas is not named in the plan documents, and the plan is not
mentioned in the judgment of dissolution or in a qualified domestic relations order.
See 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C), (J).
2. Vyas has no claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Schwab because
Schwab did not "perform[] a fiduciary function" when it took "the action[s] subject
to complaint." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 226 (2000). Vyas alleged only
that Schwab carried out the directions of the plan administrator, which is not a
party to this lawsuit. See Wright v. Or. Metallurgical Corp., 360 F.3d 1090, 1102
(9th Cir. 2004) ("ERISA relieves a trustee from fiduciary obligations regarding the
management and control of a plan's assets when the trustee is directed by the
plan's designated fiduciaries." (quotation marks omitted)). Schwab did not
"exercise[] any discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting
management of [the] plan[s] or exercise[] any authority or control respecting
management or disposition of [plan] assets." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(i).
AFFIRMED.
2