18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 363 by an award of those benefits, which Plaintiff was not seeking. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to satisfy Article III, and it granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (xx) Stays In ERISA Class Actions O ’ Driscoll, et al. v. Plexus Corp., Case No. 20-CV-1065 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2021). Plaintiff, a participant in Defendant’s 401k retirement plan, filed a class action alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the plan in violation of the ERISA. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Divane, et al. v. Northwestern University , 935 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2020), a case on which Defendants largely based their Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Court recognized that Divane represented a split of opinions within the Courts of Appeals, and the decision would likely clarify the pleading requirements for breach of fiduciary claims under the ERISA. As a result, the Court concluded that in the interest of judicial economy this action should be stayed pending the decision in Divane . Id . at 1. The Court determined that the stay would also conserve the parties’ resources and allow them to avoid unnecessary discovery or appeals, depending on the direction of the Supreme Court’s decision. Id . at 2. Accordingly, the Court, sua sponte , stayed the action until further order. (xxi) Venue Issues In ERISA Class Actions Becker, et al. v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, 993 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff, a participant Wells Fargo’s 401(k) Retirement Plan, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violation of the ERISA with respect to the management of the Plan. Wells Fargo moved to transfer venue to the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Plan’s forum selection clause. The District Court granted the motion. Plaintiff requested a writ of mandamus asking the Ninth Circuit to rescind that transfer order. The Ninth Circuit denied the request. The Ninth Circuit explained that in order to grant the request for relief, Plaintiff must show that the District Court committed clear error when it transferred her case. Id . at 732. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the District Court did not commit clear error in transferring the case. The Ninth Circuit explained that the vast majority of forum selection clauses are valid, and the ability for Defendant to pick one of the venue options was unrestricted. The Ninth Circuit further determined that Wells Fargo’s forum selection clause did not undermine the goal of the ERISA of allowing "ready access to the Federal courts." Id . at 733. Further, the Ninth Circuit opined that the forum selection clause furthered the ERISA’s other goals because all Plan interpretation would occur in one forum. Id . Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court properly enforced the forum selection clause and it thereby denied Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Carlisle, et al. v. Board Of Trustees Of The American Federation Of The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73881 (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2021). Plaintiff, a participant in the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the "Plan"), brought a class action alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the ERISA by investing in risky assets with the goal of attaining an unrealistically high rate of return. Id. at *2. An agreement in the Plan included a forum-selection clause requiring any participant asserting a claim against the Plan to commence the action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Id. at *3. Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court granted the motion. In its analysis, the Court considered whether the forum-selection clause was reasonably communicated to Plaintiff. The Court determined that the parties’ Participation Agreement was "the basis for participation" in the Plan and its terms were "a condition of participation" by employees. Id. at *10. Within the Participation Agreement was a statement that explained that a participant was required to commence any legal action in the Northern District of New York. The Court therefore concluded that Plaintiff had notice of the forum-selection clause. The Court also held that the language in the agreement made the forum-selection clause mandatory and not permissive, which also weighed in favor of the clause’s enforcement and the transfer motion. In addition, the Court determined that the claims were expressly contained in language of the forum-selection clause, as the clause stated that it applied to claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty under the ERISA. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that enforcement of the Participation Agreement’s forum-selection clause would be unfair or unjust. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the forum selection clause in the Participation Agreement applied to Plaintiff’s claims, and it granted the motion to transfer venue.