Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04743/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04743-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1104 Recovery of Benefits to Employee

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION Master File No. 03-04743 WWS

ERISA LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

ORDER

ALL ACTIONS

_____________________________________/

Defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) moves for summary judgment against

plaintiffs Douglas Pettit and Eric Carey, who filed suit on behalf of the JDSU 401(K) Retirement

Plan, the former OCLI 401(k) Retirement Plan, and a purported class of similarly situated

current and former participants. Additionally, plaintiffs Pettit and Carey move for class

certification. The Court will deny the motion for summary judgment against Pettit and defer

decision of the remaining motions.

As part of his severance package from JDSU, plaintiff Pettit signed a release stating:

“you completely release from and agree not to file, cause to be filed, or otherwise pursue

against the company, . . . any and all claims you may now have or have ever had against the

Company.” JDSU contends that Pettit lacks Article III standing because the release covers any

interest Pettit had in the plans, and therefore any harms suffered by Pettit cannot be redressed

through a suit on behalf of those plans.

This argument is largely a rehash of the breach of contract argument made by JDSU in

its counterclaims, and which the court addressed in the Order of Sept. 11, 2006 dismissing

Case 4:03-cv-04743-CW Document 183 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -2-

those counterclaims. There is no reason to deviate from the reasoning of that order here. In

short, JDSU’s argument is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bowles v. Reade, 198

F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999), in which the court observed that despite Bowles’ having released her

individual claims, it was proper for her to “remain[] as a plaintiff in her representative capacity on

behalf of The Plans and the participants.” Id. at 761. Had Bowles been able to release her

ability to benefit through a successful suit on behalf of the plans, she would no longer have

been a proper representative. Similarly, Pettit has Article III standing because he released only

his individual claims, retaining his ability to receive redress through the plans.

JDSU also argues that Carey lacks standing under Kuntz v. Reese, 785 F.2d 1410 (9th

Cir. 1986), because he is no longer a JDSU employee and has previously received distribution

of his vested benefits. Kuntz, however, addressed a situation in which plaintiffs were former

participants in a “defined benefits plan” where success in the suit would not result in an increase

in the benefits retroactively owed to plaintiffs. See id. After Kuntz, this District addressed the

“defined contribution plan” situation in Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. Mgmt., Inc., No. 03-5725, 2005 WL

2373718 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2005), appeal docketed, No. 05-17100 (filed Oct. 26, 2005),

holding that a plaintiff in a situation analogous to Carey’s was likewise seeking damages, and

therefore had no standing under ERISA. As the issues surrounding Carey’s standing will likely

be disposed of by the Ninth Circuit in Vaughn, the Court will defer ruling on Carey’s standing

pending disposition of that appeal.

Finally, plaintiffs move for class certification of the following class:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the JDS Uniphase

Corporation Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan (“JDSU Plan”) and the former

OCLI 401(k) Plan (“OCLI Plan”) whose individual accounts in these Plans held

shares of JDS Uniphase Corporation (“JDSU”) common stock and/or a fund

invested in JDSU common stock (collectively, “JDSU Stock” “Stock,” or “Fund”)

between February 4, 2000 and September 30, 2003 (the “Class Period”).

Because there are significant factual questions that reflect on the proper scope of the

class, including class representatives, period, and membership, a ruling on this motion will be

deferred pending further discovery.

Case 4:03-cv-04743-CW Document 183 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 -3-

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Douglas Pettit

for lack of Article III standing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April ___, 2007 _______________________________________

WILLIAM W SCHWARZER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-04743-CW Document 183 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 3