II. Significant Rulings In ERISA Class Actions In 2024, the plaintiffs’ bar was successful in obtaining class certification 67% of the time, with 24 of 36 total motions being granted by the courts.
The significant ERISA decisions in 2024 can be grouped in several categories, including rulings on class certification, rulings on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, rulings on challenges to standing, rulings involving the denial of health benefits, rulings involving the application of time bars, and rulings on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration and class action waivers. 1. Rulings On Class Certification In most class actions, class certification under Rule 23 is considered to be the “holy grail” for plaintiffs’ lawyers. If a plaintiff is able to achieve certification, then a lucrative settlement often follows. In the ERISA context, however, motions for class certification generally play a diminished role. Because the plaintiffs in these cases typically allege that discrete types of alleged plan mismanagement led to common injuries that affected large numbers of plan participants in similar ways, class certification is often seen as a foregone conclusion. However, this is not always the case, and in 2024 there were several notable decisions that turned on the interpretation of the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Luense, et al. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc ., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96412 (D.N.J. May 30, 2024), demonstrates the ease with which plaintiffs generally are able to satisfy Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that their 401(k) plan’s administrators had breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by including and retaining mutual funds that were unnecessarily expensive, failing to establish an adequate review system for fees, and failing to leverage the plan’s size to negotiate lower costs for participants. Id. at *4-5. The plaintiffs also argued that many funds were not only unnecessarily costly but also underperformed in comparison to cheaper alternatives. Id. Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the plan committee failed to properly monitor recordkeeping fees, which increased significantly during the class period. The plaintiffs sought class certification for all individuals who participated in or were beneficiaries of the 401(k) plan during the class period. Id. at *6. The court quickly marched through the Rule 23(a) factors and found that all were satisfied. Id. at *9. The general
2
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
ERISA Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online