1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No.: 1:22-cv-23232-KMW 

Assigned to: Judge Kathleen M. Williams 

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid 

GARY CATENAC, AYANA KNOWLES, FRANK 

HAMMOND, ALEXANDER OKWALI, and 

HARRY GARCIA, individually and as 

representatives of a class of participants and 

beneficiaries on behalf of the Lennar Corporation 

401(K) Plan, 

Plaintiffs, 

v . 

LENNAR CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Plaintiffs ask this Court to invalidate the arbitration provision in the Lennar Corporation 

401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) based on Henry v. Wilmington Trust, NA, 72 F.4th 499 (3d Cir. 2023), 

cert. denied sub nom. Wilmington Tr., N.A. v. Marlow, 23-122, 2023 WL 6797729 (U.S. Oct. 16, 

2023). See Dkt. 35. But Henry provides no basis for invalidating the arbitration provision in this 

matter. 

To start, Henry’s determination that an arbitration provision may not foreclose the 

“removal of a plan fiduciary” has no bearing here. 72 F.4th at 507. The Plan’s arbitration provision 

prohibits only Plan-wide monetary relief, a limitation which courts agree is permissible, while 

allowing for the sort of Plan-wide non-monetary relief under ERISA that Plaintiffs seek in their 

Case 1:22-cv-23232-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 1 of 3
2 

Amended Complaint. Injunctive remedies like fiduciary removal thus remain available because 

they do not provide “additional” relief to anyone beyond the claimant. Henry gives no reason to 

conclude otherwise. Further, Supreme Court precedent—unaddressed by Henry—instructs that 

when courts “do not know how the arbitrator will construe [arbitration agreements’] remedial 

limitations, . . . the proper course is to compel arbitration” rather than interpret those remedial

limitations in the “abstract.” PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401, 407 (2003). 

Further, Henry declines to enforce an arbitration provision that “purports to prohibit plan 

participants from bringing claims that would have the purpose of effect of providing monetary . . . 

relief to third parties.” 72 F.4th at 507 (internal quotation marks removed). But Henry—like 

Harrison v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc. Bd. of Directors, 59 F.4th 1090 (10th Cir. 2023)—

ignores the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 

(2022). See Dkt. 33, Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration, at 4-6. Even 

assuming ERISA allows participants to bring representative claims for monetary relief, see 72 

F.4th at 506, such relief is, in Viking River’s terminology, a form of “claim joinder” for other 

participants’ individual claims, see 142 S. Ct. at 1915. A statute may permit “claim joinder” 

representative claims, but arbitration provisions can modify plaintiffs’ ability to bring them. 

Viking River, 142 S. Ct. at 1923-24. Just such a provision was at issue in Henry, and also here, 

and under Viking River they must be enforced. Henry, like Harrison, contravenes Viking River, 

and tellingly neither court addresses that decision. 

Notably, Judge Scola’s decision in Holmes v. Baptist Health follows both Supreme Court 

and Eleventh Circuit precedent by holding that “[w]hile the arbitration agreement prohibits the 

recovery of some Plan-wide monetary relief, such relief is only available to those who bring a 

representative or class action,” and “as the Eleventh Circuit has already held that a waiver of the 

Case 1:22-cv-23232-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 2 of 3
3 

right to bring a class action in arbitration is permissible, the concomitant waiver of remedies 

associated with class actions is also permissible.” 2022 WL 180638, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 

2022) (emphasis added). This Court should do the same. 

Date: November 27, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kimberley E. Lunetta 

Kimberley E. Lunetta 

(FL Bar Number: 1026812) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 

Miami, Florida 33131-2339 

Telephone: +1 (305) 415-3000 

Facsimile: +1 (305) 415-3001 

kimberley.lunetta@morganlewis.com

Keri L. Engelman (pro hac vice) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Federal Street 

Boston, MA 02110-1726 

Telephone: (617) 341-7828 

Fax: (617) 341-7001 

keri.engelman@morganlewis.com

Brian T. Ortelere (pro hac vice) 

Jared R. Killeen (pro hac vice) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 

2222 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 

Telephone: (215) 963.5917.5000 

Facsimile: (215) 963.5001 

brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com

jared.killeen@morganlewis.com

Counsel for Defendant Lennar Corporation

Case 1:22-cv-23232-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 3 of 3