# Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · June 18, 1992 · 966 F.2d 1078

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001629

## Case

- **Full name:** Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CONSULTANTS & ADMINISTRATORS, INCORPORATED, James F. Norton, Paul A. DiFranco, and Walter Hardy, Joseph J. Spingola, L.E. Gianetti, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Henry Argenta, Joseph DeRose v. CONSULTANTS & ADMINISTRATORS, INCORPORATED, James F. Norton and Paul A. Fosco
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** June 18, 1992
- **Citations:** 966 F.2d 1078; 1991 WL 340573
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ripple
- **Judges:** Cudahy, Posner, Ripple
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[bjefore it was amended in 1987, [29 U.S.C. § 1113] contained a constructive knowledge provision, stating that the three-year limitations period began when a plaintiff ‘could reasonably be expected to have obtained knowledge’ from certain reports filed with th…
- finding that renewal of a contract gave rise to a new independent cause of action because to relegate the date of accrual to the first date the contract was agreed upon would ignore “the continuing nature of a trustee’s duty under ERISA to review plan investments and eliminate…
- stating that “it is not necessary for a potential plaintiff to have knowledge of every last detail of a transaction, or knowledge of its illegality” for the actual knowledge requirement to be satisfied
- stating that before it was amended in 1987, § 1113 contained a constructive knowledge provision
- recognizing claim against trustees for failure to take action to recover kickbacks paid by service providers through trustee’s brother-in-law

## Opinion text

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join the judgment of the court and the essential reasoning of the principal opinion. Because the elements of laches have not been met in the case before us, there is no necessity to confront definitively whether such a defense is ever available when the Secretary of Labor brings an ERISA action. I note, however, that it would be an overreaction to read the principal opinion as suggesting the inevitability of a holding that the doctrine of laches does apply. As the principal opinion notes, there are several good reasons that justify treating the ERISA situation as substantially different from EEOC cases.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001629. Public record. Not legal advice.