This week’s first notable decision is Wit, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, No. 14-CV-02346-JCS, 2020 WL 6479273 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020), where the court issued the remedies in two ERISA class actions, Wit et al. v. United Behavioral Health. and Alexander et al. v. United Behavioral Health.
By way
Happy New Year, ERISA Watchers! We were scheduled to be off this week but with good news on the ERISA remedies front, I could not resist. This week’s notable decision, Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 18-487-CV, __F.3d__, 2019 WL 7042414 (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2019), is more fruit from Amara’s labor. In a
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