Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01007/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01007-14/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

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-cv-01007-JLT-BAM

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

James C. Shah

Ronald S. Kravitz

MILLER SHAH LLP

456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (866) 540-5505

Facsimile: (866) 3007367

Email: jcshah@millershah.com

rskravitz@millershah.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Plan,

and the Proposed Class

Donald Patrick Sullivan

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

50 California Street, 9th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-4615

Telephone: (415) 394-9400

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401

Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com

Attorney for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re Sutter Health ERISA Litigation

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

Amended Consolidated Complaint filed: 

November 11, 2020

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 7
- 1 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

Plaintiffs Christina Bonicarlo, Nicole Garcia, Ronald Hudson, Adam Blackburn, Robert L. 

Hackett, Tabitha Hoglund, Stephanie Chadwick (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Sutter 

Health (“Defendant” and with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, 

hereby stipulate and agree as follows (the “Stipulation”):

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 

26, the “Complaint”) on November 11, 2020 on behalf of the Sutter Health 403(b) Savings Plan (the 

“Plan”) and a proposed class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan;

WHEREAS, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint on February 9, 

2023 (see ECF No. 89); 

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of the Sutter Health 403(b) 

Savings Plan Committee as a defendant to the above-captioned matter in June 16, 2023 (ECF No. 

101); and

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred regarding streamlining the litigation for 

purposes of the efficient management of the litigation.

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S 

APPROVAL, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The following class (“Class”) shall be certified to pursue the claims set forth in the 

Complaint:

All participants and beneficiaries in the Sutter Health 403(b) Savings Plan at any 

time on or after July 21, 2014 to the present (the “Class Period”).

2. The Class is numerous, as the Plan had thousands of participants during the Class 

Period.

3. At this time, the Parties agree there are common issues related to the claims of the 

Class including inter alia: (1) whether the Plan fiduciaries discharged their duties of prudence and 

loyalty with respect to the Plan in (a) monitoring investment options in the Plan and (b) monitoring 

the Plan’s recordkeeping and administrative services arrangements; (2) whether the Plan and its 

participants and beneficiaries were injured by any breaches of duty; and (3) whether the Plan and its 

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 7
- 2 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

participants and beneficiaries are entitled to any recovery and the measure of any such recovery. 

4. At this time, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs are typical of other Class members with 

respect to the claims at issue in this litigation, as they participated in the Plan during the Class Period 

and were treated consistently with other Class members.

5. At this time, the Parties agree that Plaintiffs are adequate to represent the Class and 

have no known conflicts with any Class members. In addition, Plaintiffs have retained competent 

and experienced counsel, associated with Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C., on behalf of the 

Class. At this time, the Parties agree that neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interests that 

might cause them to refrain from vigorously pursuing the claims in this action. Plaintiffs and their 

counsel are adequate to represent the Class.

6. At this time, the Parties agree that certification of the Class is appropriate under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) because prosecuting separate actions against Defendant 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members 

that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. 

7. At this time, the Parties agree that certification of the Class is also appropriate under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) because adjudications as to individual Class members, 

as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other persons not parties to the 

individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests 

relating to those issues.

8. Plaintiffs may be appointed as Class representatives.

9. Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C. may be appointed as Class counsel.

10. This Stipulation does not waive any affirmative defenses Defendant may have as to 

any member of the Class. Any waiver of affirmative defenses deemed to be made by virtue of this 

Stipulation shall be consistent with, and limited by, the terms of this Stipulation. Any such waiver 

would be deemed by the Parties to have been voided in the event that Defendant exercises the options 

set forth in paragraph 11.

11. This Stipulation is without prejudice to any party’s ability to seek relief under Rule 

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 7
- 3 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

23(c)(1)(C) at any time before final judgment, based on a good-faith belief that, because of changed 

circumstances or new information, the Class no longer satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) or 

23(b)(1). Such relief may include, without limitation, decertification, modification of the Class 

definition, or certification of sub-classes.

12. Class certification has been granted in ERISA cases involving defined contribution 

plans in the Ninth Circuit and around the country. See, e.g., Munro v. Univ. of Southern California, 

2019 WL 7842551 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019); Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., 2017 

WL 2655678 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2017); In re Northrop Grumman Corp. ERISA Litig., 2011 WL 

3505264 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2011); Foster v. v. Adams & Assocs., Inc., 2019 WL 4305538 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 11, 2019); Norris v. Mazzola, 2017 WL 6493091 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2017); Cryer v. 

Franklin Templeton Resources, Inc., 2017 WL 4023149 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2017); Kanawi v. Bechtel 

Corp., 254 F.R.D. 102, 112 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

13. Similar stipulations regarding class certification also have been approved in other 

ERISA cases involving defined contribution plans. See In re Biogen, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. 1:20-cv11325-DJC, ECF No. 104 (D. Mass. Nov. 8, 2022); In re MedStar ERISA Litig., No. 1:20-cv-01984-

DLB, ECF No. 64 (D. Md. July 12, 2022); Feinberg v. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00427 

(D. Md. May 17, 2019); Reetz v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00075, ECF No. 97 (W.D.N.C. 5:18-

cv-00075); Moitoso v. FMR LLC, No. 1:18-cv-12122, ECF No. 83 (D. Mass. May 7, 2019); Velazquez 

v. Mass. Fin. Srvs. LLC, No. 1:17-cv-11249, ECF No. 94 (D. Mass. June 25, 2019); Pledger v. 

Reliance Tr. Co., No. 1:15-cv-4444, ECF No. 101 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2017).

IT IS SO STIPULATED this 22nd day of January, 2024.

/s/ James C. Shah

James C. Shah

Ronald S. Kravitz

MILLER SHAH LLP

456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (866) 540-5505

Facsimile: (866) 3007367

Email: jcshah@millershah.com

/s/ Donald Patrick Sullivan

Donald Patrick Sullivan

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

50 California Street, 9th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-4615

Telephone: (415) 394-9400

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401

Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 4 of 7
- 4 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

rskravitz@millershah.com

James E. Miller 

Laurie Rubinow

MILLER SHAH LLP

65 Main Street

Chester, CT 06412

Telephone: (866) 540-5505

Facsimile: (866) 300-7367

Email: jemiller@millershah.com

lrubinow@millershah.com 

Alec J. Berin

MILLER SHAH LLP

1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: (866) 540-5505

Facsimile: (866) 300-7367

Email: mpols@millershah.com

ajberin@millershah.com 

Donald R. Reavey

CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.

2933 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Telephone: (717) 233-4101

Facsimile: (717) 233-4103

Email: donr@capozziadler.com

Mark K. Gyandoh

CAPOZZI ADLER P.C.

312 Old Lancaster Road

Merion Station, PA 19066

Telephone: (610) 890-0200

Facsimile: (717) 233-4103

Email: markg@capozziadler.com 

Daniel L. Germain

ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 

16311 Ventura Blvd, Suite1200 

Encino, CA 91436-2152 

Telephone: (818) 788-0877 

Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 

Email: Germain@lalawyer.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Plan, 

and the Proposed Class

Howard Shapiro (admitted pro hac vice)

Stacey C.S. Cerrone (admitted pro hac vice)

Lindsey H. Chopin (admitted pro hac vice)

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400

New Orleans, LA 70130

Telephone: (504) 208-1755

Facsimile: (504) 208-1759

Howard.Shapiro@jacksonlewis.com

Stacey.Cerrone@jacksonlewis.com

Lindsey.Chopin@jacksonlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 5 of 7
- 5 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

ORDER

Considering the above stipulation in light of the entire record: 

1. The following class (“Class”) is certified to pursue the claims set forth in the 

Complaint:

All participants and beneficiaries in the Sutter Health 403(b) Savings Plan at any 

time on or after July 21, 2014 to the present (the “Class Period”).

2. The Court finds the Class to be numerous, as the parties have stipulated that the Plan 

had thousands of participants during the Class Period.

3. The Parties stipulate, and the Court finds, that there are common issues related to the 

claims of the Class including inter alia: (1) whether the Plan fiduciaries discharged their duties of 

prudence and loyalty with respect to the Plan in (a) monitoring investment options in the Plan and 

(b) monitoring the Plan’s recordkeeping and administrative services arrangements; (2) whether the 

Plan and its participants and beneficiaries were injured by any breaches of duty; and (3) whether the 

Plan and its participants and beneficiaries are entitled to any recovery and the measure of any such 

recovery. 

4. The Parties stipulate, and the Court finds, that Plaintiffs are typical of other Class 

members with respect to the claims at issue in this litigation, as they participated in the Plan during 

the Class Period and were treated consistently with other Class members.

5. The Parties agree, and the Court finds, that Plaintiffs are adequate to represent the 

Class and have no known conflicts with any Class members. In addition, Plaintiffs have retained 

competent and experienced counsel, associated with Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C., on 

behalf of the Class. The Parties agree and the Court finds that neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel 

have any interests that might cause them to refrain from vigorously pursuing the claims in this 

action. Plaintiffs and their counsel are therefore adequate to represent the Class.

6. The Parties agree, and the Court finds, that certification of the Class is appropriate 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) because prosecuting separate actions against 

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 6 of 7
- 6 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION

1:20-CV-01007-JLT-BAM

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

Defendant would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual 

Class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. 

7. The Parties further agree, and the Court further, finds that certification of the Class is 

appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) because adjudications as to 

individual Class members, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other 

persons not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their 

ability to protect their interests relating to those issues.

8. Plaintiffs are appointed as Class representatives.

9. Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C. are appointed as Class counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2024 

Case 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM Document 112 Filed 01/26/24 Page 7 of 7