Good morning, ERISA Watchers! Just moments after last week’s newsletter went out, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 9-0 decision in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116, __S.Ct.__, 2020 WL 908881 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2020), a case involving allegations of imprudent investment of retirement plan assets. The court held that to meet the “actual knowledge” requirement to trigger ERISA’s three-year limitations period, a plaintiff must have become aware of the information; actual knowledge does not exist where a plaintiff receives disclosures with the information but does not read them or cannot recall reading them. The decision comes as no surprise where at the oral argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (my Shero) stated, “I must say, I don’t read all the mailings that I get about my investments.” The decision makes perfect sense. I mean, it’s 4 a.m., do you know what your investments are up to?
Continue Reading District Court Reduces Class Counsel Common Fund Fee Award Due to Attorney Misconduct
Fifth Circuit Denies Attorneys’ Fees to Plaintiff for en banc Success Changing Judicial Standard of Review
This week’s notable decision is another terrible decision for ERISA plan participants out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., No. 18-20700, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 5866677 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019) (“Ariana II”). This is a disappointing sequel in a case where the Fifth Circuit previously issued a plaintiff-friendly decision on the standard of review applied in ERISA cases. The case first reached the Fifth Circuit in Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., 884 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Ariana I”) in which the court issued an en banc published decision overturning the longstanding position on standard of review in Pierre v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 932 F.2d 1552, 1562 (5th Cir. 1991). The court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for review under a de novo standard of review. (Read more about Ariana I in Brent Dorian Brehm’s Fall 2017 EBC Newsletter article: What Does de novo Review Mean Under ERISA?)
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Denies Attorneys’ Fees to Plaintiff for en banc Success Changing Judicial Standard of Review
Sixth Circuit Affirms Denial of Attorneys’ Fees to Successful ERISA Plaintiff in QDRO Dispute
This week’s notable decision, Simonoff v. Saghafi, et al., No. 19-3001, __F.App’x__, 2019 WL 4691468 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2019), is one where your sympathies may align with the end result, but one which seemingly makes a case that it is difficult to get attorneys’ fees if you’re a successful party in an ERISA action.
As the panel noted in its opening line, “[a]ll family disputes are sad.” The underlying dispute involved a QDRO enforcement action between a husband and his wife’s guardian following 55 years of marriage. In short, Defendant Dr. Saghafi, alleged that his estranged daughter took advantage of his wife’s (her mother’s) dementia by isolating her from the family and hiring a divorce attorney who convinced the family court to issue two QDROs requiring Dr. Saghafi to sign off on the division of certain retirement funds. He refused. So, Plaintiff, the guardian of the wife’s estate, brought suit to enforce the QDROs. Dr. Saghafi responded by bringing several counterclaims, including a civil RICO claim. The district court enforced the QDROs and dismissed the counterclaims, not on their merits, but because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which prohibits federal appellate review of state judgments.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Denial of Attorneys’ Fees to Successful ERISA Plaintiff in QDRO Dispute