Last week, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wong v. Flynn-Kerper, No. 19-56289, __F.3d__, 2021 WL 2307485 (9th Cir. June 7, 2021) (before Circuit Judges Friedland and Bennett, and District Judge Frederick Block), is a meandering tale of deceit, greed, and incompetence with respect to Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) administration. But the moral of the story is clear, as the Ninth Circuit joined the Fourth Circuit in barring the defensive use of equitable estoppel when estopping the plaintiff would contradict an ERISA plan’s express terms.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That a Party, Whether a Plaintiff or a Defendant, Cannot use Equitable Estoppel to Contradict the Express Terms of an ERISA Plan in Litigation with the Plan
Jury Trials in ERISA Cases?
Romano v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., No. 19-21147-CIV, 2021 WL 949939 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2021) (Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman).
As the readers of this newsletter know, the federal courts have long decided that claims under ERISA are traditionally equitable in nature, and as a result, litigants typically are not entitled to a trial by jury. However, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions in recent years suggesting that claims under ERISA can be viewed as legal or equitable, depending on the relief requested. As a result, attorneys representing ERISA plaintiffs have started wondering whether they should be pushing back against the established notion that their clients are not entitled to jury trials. This case is another chapter in that story.
Court Holds No Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial for ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
This week’s notable decision is Moitoso v. FMR LLC, No. CV 18-12122-WGY, __ F.Supp.3d __, 2019 WL 4980390 (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2019), where the court concluded that any money award the ERISA plan participants might win against the alleged breaching fiduciaries would be an equitable surcharge–not legal damages–such that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial in this case. Even so, the court did grant Plaintiffs’ alternative request for an advisory jury. The court’s conclusion is not extraordinary; indeed, most courts to have considered the right to a jury in a fiduciary breach case have concluded the same. What’s interesting about this decision is the depth of the court’s analysis of the historical practice of jury trials and ERISA’s text in rejecting the participants’ arguments in favor of a jury trial for their claims.
Continue Reading Court Holds No Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial for ERISA Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims