Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02732/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02732-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties

---

[1] 

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

MICHAEL SCHLOSS, CA Bar No. 134124 

ROBERT FURST 

PETER B. DOLAN 

U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of the Solicitor 

Plan Benefits Security Division 

P.O. Box 1914 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

202-693-5612 

202-693-5610 (FAX) 

Email: schloss.michael@dol.gov 

DANIELLE L. JABERG, CA Bar No. 256653 

U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of the Solicitor 

90 7th Street, Suite 3-700 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

415-625-7750 

415-625-7772 (FAX) 

Email: jaberg.danielle@dol.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Secretary 

of the United States Department of Labor 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of the United 

States Department of Labor, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CLAIR R. COUTURIER, JR, et al.

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-GGH 

FIRST ORDER AMENDING CONSENT 

JUDGMENT & ORDER BETWEEN THE 

SECRETARY AND DEFENDANTS 

DAVID R. JOHANSON AND JOHANSON 

BERENSON LLP 

Honorable Judge Ralph R. Beistline 

Plaintiff Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor 

("Secretary"), and Defendants David R. Johanson and Johanson Berenson LLP ("Settling 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 7
[2] 

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

Defendants") have agreed to settle a controversy arising from alleged civil contempt, by 

Defendants Johanson and Johanson Berenson, of paragraph 13.e in the Consent Judgment & 

Order entered in this action on March 10, 2010, as ECF # 204. The contempt dispute thus 

resolved concerns whether or not either or both of these two defendants are liable for injunctive 

relief for the alleged contempt, and this contempt dispute arises only from Settling Defendants 

David R. Johanson's and Johanson Berenson LLP’s representation of one or more of J. Michael 

Bruce, Herbert C. Bruister, Bruister Family LLC, Bruister and Associates, Jonda C. Henry, Amy 

O. Smith, and the Bruister Plans, in relation to: Bruister, et al. v. Beazley Ins. Co., Inc., No. 

4:10-cv-136-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.), and the settlement thereof. 

In settling this civil contempt controversy, the Secretary and Settling Defendants 

Johanson and Johanson Berenson have agreed to this First Order Amending Consent Judgment 

& Order, which amends ECF # 204 by adding new injunctive restrictions not ordered in ECF 

# 204. Settling Defendants neither admit nor deny any alleged civil contempt described above. 

Plaintiff Secretary has acknowledged that Settling Defendants Johanson and Johanson Berenson 

have timely either paid, or caused payment on their behalf of, all consideration due under 

paragraphs two through six in ECF # 204. All other provisions in the order entered as ECF # 204 

remain in full effect. 

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this First Order Amending Consent 

Judgment & Order and over the subject matter of this action and is empowered to provide the 

relief herein. 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 7
[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. Paragraph 13.e in the Consent Judgment & Order entered in this action on March 

10, 2010, as ECF # 204 is modified by deleting that paragraph 13.e and replacing it with the 

paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 set forth below. 

 13.1 David R. Johanson and Johanson Berenson, LLP are permanently enjoined 

and restrained from taking on, whether directly or indirectly through any other entity or 

other person, any new client or new project or new matter from an existing client from 

the date of this order involving: 

A. serving or acting, for compensation or otherwise, as service 

providers, administrators, officers, custodians, counsels, agents, 

employees, attorneys, consultants, advisors or representatives in 

any other capacity, to any ERISA-covered employee benefit plan, 

its trustees, or its other fiduciaries; 

B. serving or acting, for compensation or otherwise, as attorneys, 

consultants, or other advisors to any entity or person for purposes 

related to the person or entity providing goods or services to any 

employee benefit plan covered by ERISA; 

C. selling, promoting, marketing or providing any product or service 

to, making any recommendation to, or bringing any product, 

service or investment to the attention of any employee benefit plan 

covered by ERISA or to the attention of any entity or person acting 

on behalf of such plan; 

D. facilitating, encouraging, recommending, or giving advice with 

respect to any investment or other expenditure by any employee 

benefit plan covered by ERISA; 

E. representing in litigation any entity or person in relation to an 

alleged fiduciary breach arising from a transaction involving any 

asset of an ERISA-covered employee benefit plan, where, in 

connection with such transaction, Mr. Johanson either represented 

or otherwise advised 

(1) an employer or employee organization that established or 

maintained the plan; 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 7
[4] 

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) the plan; 

(3) any other party to the transaction; 

(4) any fiduciary or service provider to the plan; 

(5) any entity that extended credit in connection with the 

transaction; or 

(6) any attorney, consultant, or other advisor (including but not 

limited to appraisers, accountants, auditors, tax consultants, 

investment analysts, and other financial analysts) to any 

person or entity described in subparagraphs 13.1.E(1) 

through 13.1.E(5) above; and 

F. violating or knowingly participating in any violation of ERISA. 

 

 13.2 The injunctive restraints in paragraph 13.1 above and this paragraph 13.2 

shall apply on a going forward basis, but shall not apply to any specific litigation or 

project that began prior to this prior to the Court's entry of this Amendment to ECF 

# 204. Further: 

A. The injunctive bar in paragraph 13.1 above shall not prevent Mr. 

Johanson from representing a person and/or entity, including but 

not limited to a corporation and/or its corporate officers and/or 

directors, who also is an ERISA plan fiduciary at any time during 

the representation on matters unrelated to the ERISA fiduciary 

status and/or fiduciary conduct of such person or entity. Mr. 

Johanson must have a written engagement document with each 

such client which clearly states that Mr. Johanson is not and cannot 

be providing legal services related to the client’s status and/or 

conduct as an ERISA fiduciary and/or service provider, and which 

in writing advises the client to obtain any such advice from 

independent counsel. 

B. Except as prohibited in subparagraphs 13.1.E(1) through 13.1.E (6) 

above, the injunctive bar in paragraph 13.1 above shall not prevent 

Mr. Johanson from representing a person and/or entity who is no 

longer an ERISA plan fiduciary and/or service provider regarding 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 7
[5] 

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

matters related to such person’s and/or entity’s prior conduct as a 

fiduciary or service provider to ERISA plans. 

C. Except as prohibited in subparagraphs 13.1.E(1) through 13.1.E (6) 

above, the injunctive bar in paragraph 13.1 above shall not prevent 

Mr. Johanson from representing a person and/or entity who is an 

ERISA plan fiduciary and/or service provider to ERISA plans at 

any time during the representation regarding matters related to 

such person’s and/or entity’s prior conduct as a fiduciary or 

service provider to ERISA plans, provided that Mr. Johanson in 

writing: 

(1) confirms that the current fiduciary has independent counsel 

for current ERISA fiduciary issues who is unrelated to Mr. 

Johanson and his firm; 

(2) advises the current ERISA plan fiduciary and/or service 

provider and independent counsel in writing that Mr. 

Johanson cannot advise the ERISA plan fiduciary and/or 

service provider regarding their current ERISA fiduciary 

obligations; and 

(3) also advises the current ERISA plan fiduciary and/or 

service provider in writing that they must consult with 

independent counsel for all matters related to current 

obligations as an ERISA fiduciary and/or service provider. 

D. Except as prohibited in subparagraphs 13.1.E (1) through 13.1.E(6) 

above, the injunctive bar in paragraph 13.1 above shall not prevent 

Mr. Johanson from representing any participant in an ERISA plan 

on any matter, including the participant’s assertion of ERISA 

claims authorized by law, except that Mr. Johanson may not 

represent a participant regarding that participant’s current ERISA 

fiduciary conduct and/or status. 

E. The injunctive bar in paragraph 13.1 above is authorized by the 

Secretary of Labor’s equitable powers to obtain injunctive relief in 

the form of a service provider bar under ERISA. It is not intended 

to restrict Mr. Johanson’s practice of law generally or on matters 

unrelated to ERISA, and thus the Parties and their counsel do not 

believe that the service provider bar is in conflict with California 

Rule of Professional Conduct section 1-500 which prohibits a 

lawyer from participating in a settlement which restricts another 

lawyer’s ability to practice law. Paragraph 13.1 above and this 

paragraph 13.2 are not intended to require Mr. Johanson to violate 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 5 of 7
[6] 

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

California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-500 and/or any similar 

rule of professional responsibility. 

3. The Secretary and Settling Defendants shall bear their own costs, expenses, and 

attorney's fees in connection with this order and any other proceeding or investigation incident 

thereto. 

4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this 

action for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Consent Judgment and Order as amended by 

this First Order Amending Consent Judgment & Order.

5. By entering into this First Order Amending Consent Judgment & Order, Settling 

Defendants represent that they have been informed by their counsel of the effect and purpose of 

this First Order Amending Consent Judgment & Order and agree to be bound by its terms. 

6. This First Order Amending Consent Judgment & Order is not binding on any 

governmental agency other than the United States Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration. 

7. This First Order Amending Consent Judgment & Order may be executed in 

counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, taken together, 

shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

The Court finds that there is no just reason to delay the entry of this First Order 

Amending Consent Judgment & Order and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), expressly directs 

the entry thereof as a final order. 

 SO ORDERED this ______ day of _____________________, 2009 

 _________________________________________ 

 RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 6 of 7
[7] 

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

The parties, by themselves or their undersigned Counsel, hereby consent to the entry of 

this Consent Judgment & Order: 

FOR PLAINTIFF 

Secretary of Labor§ 

M. PATRICIA SMITH 

Solicitor of Labor 

G. WILLIAM SCOTT 

Associate Solicitor, PBSD 

JANET HEROLD 

Regional Solicitor, San Francisco 

 DANIELLE L. JABERG 

 Counsel for ERISA, San Francisco 

BY: ____/s/_Peter B. Dolan________________ Date _______12/14/2015_________ 

MICHAEL SCHLOSS 

ROBERT FURST 

PETER B. DOLAN 

Senior Trial Attorneys 

Plan Benefits Security Division 

Office of the Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Labor 

P.O. Box 1914 

Washington, DC 20013-1914 

Phone: (202) 693-5612 

Fax: (202) 693-5610 

NATALIE P. VANCE 

Counsel for Defendant David R. Johanson and Defendant Johanson Berenson LLP 

 

__/s/ Natalie P. Vance_________________ Date _______12/14/2015_________ 

NATALIE P. VANCE 

Klinedinst PC 

801 K Street, Suite 2100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: (916) 444-7573 

Fax: (916) 444-7544 

nvance@klinedinstlaw.com 

Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 207-1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 7 Case 2:08-cv-02732-RRB-KJN Document 209 Filed 03/01/16 Page 7 of 7