18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

318 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition whose beneficiaries were receiving or were entitled to receive benefits;" and (ii) "the Plan’s records and Form 5500s from between 1969 and 1980, upon information and belief, will show that more than 40 participants or beneficiaries fall within the class." Id . at *16. The Court reasoned that using the 2018 Form to identify or estimate the number of class members would not be appropriate because only those who were denied benefits under the Plan were included in the proposed class definition. The Court further determined that the Form 5500 would not reflect whether an individual relied upon alleged promises regarding benefits or submitted written requests for Plan documents, as required by the alleged ERISA violations. The Court declined to address the remaining Rule 23 requirements, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (xii) District Of Columbia Circuit No reported decisions. B. Other Federal Rulings Affecting The Defense Of ERISA Class Actions Throughout 2021, federal courts issued a wide variety of rulings on procedural and substantive matters in ERISA class action litigation. These rulings included administrative fees in ERISA class actions; administrative exhaustion in ERISA class actions; appeal issues in ERISA class actions; arbitration issues in ERISA class actions; attorneys’ fees and costs in ERISA class actions; breach of fiduciary duty in ERISA class actions; discovery issues in ERISA class actions; DOL and PBGC ERISA enforcement litigation; ERISA 401(k) class actions; ERISA class action litigation over retiree/employee benefits; ERISA stock drop class actions; excessive fee claims in ERISA class actions; fiduciary duty issues in ERISA class actions; preemption, procedural, and coverage issues in ERISA class actions; preemptive motions in ERISA class actions; releases issues in ERISA class actions; selection of lead counsel in ERISA class actions; settlement approval issues in ERISA class actions; standing issues in ERISA class actions; stays in ERISA class actions; and venue issues in ERISA class actions. (i) Administrative Fees In ERISA Class Actions Berube, et al. v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-1783 (E.D. Wis. April 12, 2021). Plaintiff, a participant in Defendant’s pension plan, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the ERISA because it utilized outdated mortality assumptions for purposes of calculating certain annuity types and thereby did not produce actuarially equivalent benefits. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court denied the motion. Plaintiff alleged that he received a pension under the plan in the form of a 50% joint and survivor annuity. Id . at 2. Plaintiff contended that the annuity must be the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity under the ERISA, but the use of the mortality assumptions caused his monthly pension payments to be lower than if the benefits were calculated using reasonable actuarial assumptions. Id . Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his internal plan remedies prior to filing the lawsuit. The Court ruled that failure to exhaust was typically an affirmative defense. Therefore, since Plaintiff did not allege in the complaint facts suggesting that he failed to exhaust his plan remedies, the Court ruled that Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be denied. Matousek, et al. v. Midamerican Energy Co., Case No. 20-CV-352 (S.D. Iowa July 2, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duties of loyalty and prudence, and failure to monitor in connection with Defendant’s management of mutual funds offered in its ERISA plan. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to allege a meaningful benchmark for assessing the funds that Defendant selected as part of its plan. The Court agreed with Defendant’s position. It determined that under Eighth Circuit case law precedent, Plaintiffs were required to identify a comparable fund with a materially similar style, structure, and goal in order to state a viable claim under the ERISA. Since Plaintiffs failed to do so, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ii) Administrative Exhaustion In ERISA Class Actions Ortiz, et al. v. Union Independiente De Empleados Telefonicos , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95164 (D.P.R. May 11, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of retired employees of the Puerto Rico Telephone Co., filed a class action alleging that Defendants, their Union and the Union’s agent, breached their fiduciary duties by inducing them to