Duane Morris ERISA Class Action Review – 2024

requirements. As to the standing challenge, the defendant argued that it was possible that some members of the putative class did not suffer any loss due to the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The court disagreed. It found that this would be a liability issue, and not an issue of standing. As to the commonality and typicality arguments, the defendant contended that there must be a separate sub-class for each allegedly imprudent investment and that the named plaintiffs could not establish typicality for allegedly imprudent investment options in which they did not invest. The court stated that this was not necessary to rule on at this stage of the litigation, noting that the claims were the same for participants and beneficiaries across the Plan ’ s investment options. The court noted that the plaintiffs were injured by the defendant ’ s alleged breach of its fiduciary duty under the ERISA in managing the Plan ’ s investment options, and the excessive fee and prohibited transaction claims were based on the defendant ’ s alleged failure to insist that the service providers charged no more than reasonable fees instead of the excessive fees paid to service providers through investments that offered revenue-sharing. Id. at *15. Although the court found that there may be factual differences between the individual funds offered by the Plan resulting in higher losses to some Plan participants compared to others, these differences would be addressed at the damages and recovery stages. For these reasons, the court held that class certification was appropriate, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. In RB, et al. v. United Behavioral Health , Case No. 21-CV-553 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2023), the plaintiffs, the parents of a minor, filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the ERISA by denying coverage for mental health services that it deemed experimental. In granting the plaintiffs motion for class certification, the court determined that the proposed class was sufficiently numerous because it had over 100 members. The court found that the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the common issue of whether the defendant ’ s coverage protocol, “which voices all coverage obligations where a provider offers a service that defendant believes is ‘ experimental, investigational or unproven’ is in parity with its coverage protocols for skilled nursing services.” Id. at 8. Furthermore, the court ruled that the class satisfied the typicality requirement because all of the class members’ claims were derived from the defendant ’ s protocol applied in its declining benefits. The court further opined that because the plaintiff was a member of the health plan, and because the ERISA allows plan participants or beneficiaries to clarify their rights to future benefits under the terms of their plans, the plaintiff was an adequate class representative. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff ’ s motion for class certification. The court also addressed the elements of class certification in Stengl, et al. v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140891 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2023). The plaintiffs, a group of retirement benefits plan participants, filed a class action alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence and failed to monitor the Plan ’ s fiduciaries in violation of the ERISA. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of all participants in or beneficiaries of the defendant ’ s retirement plan, who either: (i) paid recordkeeping and administration fees at any time from November 23, 2015 through July 1, 2018; or (ii) were invested in allegedly imprudent investment options from November 23, 2015 through December 31, 2019. The court determined that the plaintiffs carried their burden of establishing the requirements of Rule 23 were met. The court noted that the class definition was sufficiently concrete and definite to satisfy the ascertainability requirement. The court also found that at over 50,000 potential class members, the class was so numerous that their joinder would be impractical. The court ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that a common question existed as to whether the defendants breached the ERISA ’ s duty of prudence in connection with selecting and monitoring the Plan ’ s investment options and monitoring the compensation paid for recordkeeping and administration services. Id. at *4. As to typicality, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the class members because they had an account in the Plan during the proposed class period and held at least one challenged option, and therefore they allegedly suffered similar harm resulting from the defendants’ alleged fiduciary breaches. The court determined that the interests of all Plan participants were aligned with the plaintiffs because they all have similar legal and financial interests in the action as the proposed class members. Additionally, the court opined that the plaintiffs’ counsel had no conflicts and would vigorously prosecute the action such that the adequacy requirement was met. Finally, the court concluded that class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) was

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online