# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 19 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es J. Tho le ; Sh erry Sm it h, ind ivi dua lly an d on be ha lf of al l oth er s sim ila rl y si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

U.S. Ban k, Nat io na l As so ci at io n, i nd iv id ua ll y an d a s s uc ces so r in in te res t t o F AF
Adv is or s, In c.; U.S. Ba nc or p

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Nuv een Ass et Man ag em en t, LLC, as su cces so r in in te res t t o F AF Adv is or s, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Ri ch ard K. Davi s; Dou gl as M. Bak er, J r.; Y. Ma rc Be lt on ; Pe te r H. Coo rs ; J oe l W.

Jo hn so n; Oli vi a F. Kirt le y ; O’Dell M. Owen s; Crai g D. Sch nu ck ; Art hu r D.
Co ll in s, J r.; Vi ct or ia Bu y ni sk i Gl uc km an ; J erry W . Levi n; Davi d B . O’ Mal ey ; Pat ric k T. St ok es ; Ri ch ard G. Reit en ; Warren R. Sta le y ; J oh n a nd Jan e Doe 1-2 0

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

AARP; AARP Fo un da ti on ; R. Al ex an de r Aco st a, Secr et ary of th e Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Lab or

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)Ch am be r of Co m m erce of t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll ee(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 11, 2 01 7
Fil ed : Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Nam ed pl ai nt iff

s Ja m es Tho le an d Sh erry Sm it h (co ll ec t i v e ly, “ pl ai nt iff s” ) 1

br ou gh t a pu ta ti ve cl as s act io n ag ai ns t U.S. Ban k, N.A. (“ U.S. Ban k” ); U.S. Ban co rp ;

an d m ul ti pl e U.S. Ban co rp di rect or s (c ol le ct iv el y , “ de fen da nt s” ), ch al le ng in g th e 2

de fen da nt s’ m an ag em en t o f a d efi ne d be ne fit pe ns io n pl an (“ Pl an ” or “ U.S. Ban k

Pe n s io n Pl an ”) fro m Sep te m be r 30

, 20 07

, to Decem

be r 31

, 20 10

. The pl ai nt iff s

a l le ge d th at th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed Sect io ns 40 4, 40 5, an d 40 6 of th e Emp l o ye e

Ret ire m e n t In co m e Secu rit y Act of 19 74 (ERISA)

, 29 U.S.C. §§ 11 04 –0 6, by

br each in g th ei r fid uc ia ry ob li ga ti on s an d cau si ng th e Pl an to en ga ge in p r oh ib it ed

tra ns act io ns wit h a U.S. Ban k su bs id ia ry , FAF Adv is or s, In c. (FAF). The pl ai nt iff s’

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d nam ed pl ai nt iff s Ad et ay o Ad ed ip e an d M arl en e 1

Ja ck so n p er t he pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d de fen da nt Nuv e e n A ss et Man ag em en t LLC 2 (“ Nuv een ”) o n i ts m ot io n.

-2

-co m

pl ai nt as se rts th at th es e al le ge d ERISA vi ol at io ns cau se d si gn ifi can t lo ss es to th e

Pl an ’s as se ts in 2 0 0 8 a n d res ul te d in th e Pl an be in g un de rfu nd ed in 20 08

. The
pl ai nt iff s so ug ht to reco ve r Pl an lo ss es , di sg or ge m en t of pr of it s, in jun ct iv e rel ie f, an d

ot he r rem ed ia l re li ef p ur su an t t o ERI SA Sect io n 5 02 (a)( 2)

, 29 U.S.C. § 1 13 2( a)(2 ),

an d ERISA Sect io n 40 9, 29 U.S.C. § 11 09

. The y al so so ug ht eq ui ta bl e rel ie f pu rs ua nt

to ERISA Sec ti on 50 2( a)(3 ), 29 U.S.C. § 1 13 2( a)(3 ).

In res po ns e, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s th e pl ai nt iff s’ co ns ol id at ed

am en de d co m

pl ai nt wit h pr ejud ic e un de r Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 )

an d 12 (b )(6 ). Sp eci fic al ly, th ey arg ue d th at th e pl ai nt iff s la ck ed st an di ng to br in g th e

su it

, th e ERISA cl ai m s were ti m e-b arre d or ha d be en rel e as ed

, an d th e pl ead in g

ot he rwis e fai le d to st at e a cl ai m on w h i ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d. Rel ev an t to th e

pr es en t ap pe al

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m ch al le ng in g th e 3

Pl an ’s st rat e g y of in ve st in g 10 0 pe rcen t of it s as se ts in eq ui ti es was ba rred by

ERISA’s si x- y ear st at ut e of rep os e. The co ur t, ho wev er, pe rm it te d th e pl ai nt iff s to

pr oc eed wit h th ei r cl ai m th at th e de fen da nt s en ga ge d in a p ro hi bi te d tra ns act io n by

in ve st in g t he Pla n’s as se ts in m ut ua l fu nd s t ha t FAF m an ag ed

.

D u r i n g t he li ti ga ti on , th e fact ua l ba ck dr op of th e cas e ch an ge d. In 20 14

, th e

Pl an be cam e ov erfu nd ed ; in ot he r wor ds

, th ere was m or e m on ey in th e Pl an th an was

ne ed ed to m eet it s ob li ga t i o n s

. The de fen da nt s, al le gi ng th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d no t

su ffer ed an y fin an ci al lo ss up on whi ch to ba se a da m ag es cl ai m , m ov ed to di sm is s th e

rem ai nd er of th e act io n fo r la ck of st an di ng pu rs ua nt to Ru le 12 (b )(1 ). Alt ho ug h th e
di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at st an di ng was th e wro ng do ct rin e to ap pl y , it gr an te d th e

m ot io n to di sm is s fo r la ck of Arti cl e III ju r i s d i c t io n ba se d on th e do ct rin e of

m oo tn es s. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at be cau se th e Pl an is no w overfu nd ed

, th e pl ai nt iff s

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 3

of Mi nn es ot a.

-3

-la ck a co nc ret e in te res t in an y m on et ary rel ie f th at th e co ur t m ig ht award to th e Pl an

if th e pl ai nt iff

s pr ev ai le d on th e m eri ts

. The co ur t la te r de ni ed th e pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n 4

f o r at to rn ey s’ fees

, de te rm in in g th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d ach ie ve d no su cces s o n t h e

m eri ts . Th e co ur t c o n c l u de d th at th e pl ai nt iff s fai le d to sh ow th at th e li ti ga ti on ha d

act ed as a cat al y st fo r an y co nt rib ut io ns th at U.S. Ban co rp m ad e to th e Pl an res ul ti ng

in it s o ve rfu nd ed st at us

.

On ap pe al

, th e pl ai nt iff

s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by (1 ) di sm is si ng th e

cas e as m oo t; (2 ) di sm is si ng th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y cl ai m on st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns an d
pl ead in g gr ou nd s; an d (3 ) de nyin g th ei r m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d co st s. W e

affi rm

.

I. Bac kg ro un d 5

A. Over vi ew o

f t he U.S. Ban k Pen si on Pla n— A Defi ne d Ben ef

it Pla n
The pl ai n t i f

f s , bo th ret ire es of U.S. Ban k, are pa rti ci pa nt s in th e U.S. Ban k

Pen si on Pl an

. U.S. Ban co rp is th e Pl an ’s sp on so r, whi le U.S. Ban k (a who ll y -o wne d

su bs id ia ry of U.S. Ban co rp ) is th e Pl an ’s tru st ee. Pu rs ua nt to th e Pl an do cu m en t, th e

Co m pe ns at io n Co m

mi t t e e an d In ve st m en t Co m m it te e ha d au th or it y to m an ag e th e

Pl an ’ s as se ts

. The Co m

pe ns at io n Co m

m it te e was co m

po se d of U.S. Ban corp dir ec tor s

an d of fic ers

. The Co m

pe ns at io n Co mm i t t ee de si gn at ed FAF as th e In ve st m en t

Man ag er wit h fu ll di sc ret io na ry in ve st m en t aut ho rit y ov er the Pl an ’s as se ts

. Dur in g

th e rel ev an t t im e p eri od , U.S. Bank was t he pa ren t o f FAF. 6

As fa r as th e rec or d d is cl os es , th e Pl an rem ai ns ov erfu nd ed

. 4

W e “ acce pt [] as tru e al l f a c t u a l a l le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt an d dr aw[] al l 5

reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” W ie la nd v. U.S. Dep ’t of

Hea lt h & Huma n S

er vs

. , 79 3 F .3d 94 9, 9 53 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

Nuv een acq ui red FAF fro m U.S. Ban k i n No ve m

be r 20 10

. 6

-4

-The Pl an is a de fin ed be ne fit pl an reg ul at ed un de r ER I S A

. Se e 29 U.S.C. §§

10 02 (2 )(A), 10 02 (3 5) , 1 00 3. “ A d efi ne d be ne fit pl an

. . . co ns is ts of a ge ne ral po ol

of as se ts rat he r th an in di vi du al de di cat ed acco un ts

. Su ch a pl an , ‘as it s na m e im pl ie s,
is on e whe re th e em

pl oyee, up on ret ire m en t, is en ti tl ed to a fix ed pe rio di c pa y m en t.’”
Hug he s Air cr af

t Co

. v. Ja co bs on , 52 5 U.S. 43 2, 43 9 (1 99 9) (q uo ti ng Co mm’r v. Key st on e Co ns ol

. In du s., In c ., 50 8 U.S. 15 2, 15 4 (1 99 3) ). Acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s,

th e Pl an ’s pu rp os e “ is to pr ov id e a m on th ly ret ire m en t in co m e ba se d on a U.S.

Ban co rp em

pl oyee’s pa y an d y ears of se rv ic e.” In 20 09

, “ Sm it h el ect ed to rece iv e he r

Pl an be ne fit s in th e fo rm of a si ng le li fe an nu it y in th e am ou nt of $4 2.2 6 pe r m on th

,

an d rece iv ed a pa y m en t of th e po rti on of he r be ne fit accr ue d un de r a pr ed eces so r pl an

. . . in th e am ou nt of $7 ,58 8.6 5.” In 20 11

, “ Tho le el ect ed to rece iv e hi s Pl an be ne fit s

in th e fo rm of a Est at e Pro te ct io n 50 % Jo in t and Su rv iv or Ann ui ty in th e am ou nt of

$2 ,19 8.3 8 pe r m on th .” Und er § 2.1 .26 of t h e P l a n , S mi th an d Tho le are en ti tl ed to

rece iv e th ei r res pe ct iv e be ne fit s fo r th e res t of th ei r li ve s. Thu s far, th e pl ai nt iff s ha ve

rece iv ed all pa y m en ts un de r th e Pl an to whi ch th ey are en ti tl ed

.

U.S. Ban co rp an d it s su bs id ia rie s m ak e al l Pl an co nt rib ut io ns

. Se e Hug he s , 52 5

U.S. at 43 9 (“ The as se t po ol m ay be fu nd ed by em pl oyer or em

pl oyee co nt rib ut io ns ,

or a co m bi na ti on of bo th .” (ci ti ng 29 U.S.C. § 10 54 (c)) ). Pl an “ m em be rs ha ve a rig ht

to a cert ai n de fin ed le v e l o f b e n e fit s, kn own as ‘accru ed be ne fit s.’” Id

. at 44 0.

“ Accru ed b en efi t” fo r pu rp os es of a de fin ed be ne fit pl an m ean s “ th e in di vi du al ’s

accr ue d be ne fit de te rm in ed un de r th e pl an

. . . ex pr es se d in th e f o rm of an an nu al

be ne fit co m

m en ci ng at n or m al ret ire m en t ag e.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 10 02 (2 3) (A).

A m eas ur em en t cal le d th e Fu nd in g Targ et At t a i n m en t Perc en ta ge (FTAP)

de te rm in es whe th er a pl an is on tra ck to m eet it s ben efi t ob li ga ti on s to pa rti ci pa nt s.
The FTAP is us ed to de te rm in e whe th er t he pl an sp on so r m us t m ak e a co nt rib ut io n

to th e Pl an in a pa rti cu la r y ear. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 10 83 (a), (d ). A pl an ’s as se ts are le ss

th an it s li ab il it ie s if it s FTAP is un de r 10 0 pe rc e n t ; i f t h i s oc cu rs , th en th e pl an

-5

-sp on so r m

us t m ak e a co nt rib ut io n. By co nt ras t, if th e FTAP is ov er 10 0 pe rcen t— i.e.,

th e pl an ’s a ss et s a r e gr eat er th an th e li ab il it ie s— th e pl an sp on so r is no t req ui red to

m ak e a co nt rib ut io n. Se e 26 U.S.C. § 4 30 (c).

Und er th e Pl an (li ke al l de fin ed be ne fit pl a n s) , “ th e em pl oyer typic al ly b ears

th e en ti re in ve st m en t ris k an d— sh or t of th e co ns eq ue nc es of pl an te rm in at io n— m us t

co ve r an y un de rfu nd in g as th e res ul t of a s h o rtf al l th at m ay oc cu r fro m th e pl an ’s

in ve st m en ts .” Hug he s , 52 5 U.S. at 43 9. Bu t “ if th e de fin ed be ne fit pl an is ov erfu nd ed

, th e em pl oyer m ay red uc e or s u sp en d hi s co nt rib ut io ns .” Id

. at 44 0. The de fin ed

be ne fit pl an ’s st ru ct ur e “ refl ect s th e ris k bo rn e by th e em pl o ye r

. ” Id

. “ Giv en th e

em pl oyer’s o bl ig at io n to m ak e up an y sh or tfa ll , no pl an m em

be r ha s a cl ai m to an y

pa rti cu la r as se t t ha t co m

po se s a p art of t he pl an ’s gen eral po ol .” Id

.

In su m m ary, “ [i]n a de fin ed be ne fit pl an , if pl an as se ts are de pl et e d b ut th e

rem ai ni ng po ol of as se ts is m or e th an ad eq ua te to pa y al l accr ue d or accu m ul at ed

be ne fit s, t he n a ny los s i s to pl an su rp lu s.” Har le y v. Min n. Min in g & Mfg . C o. , 2 84

F.3 d 90 1, 90 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). “ Pl an be ne fic ia rie s ha ve no cl ai m or en ti tl em en t to it s

su rp lu s. If th e Pl an is ov erfu nd ed

, [ t h e e mp l oyer] m ay red uc e or su sp en d it s

co nt rib ut io ns .” Id

. Co nv ers el y , “ [i]f th e P l a n ’s su rp lu s di sa pp ears , it is [th e

em pl oyer]’ s o bl ig at io n t o m ak e u p a ny un de rfu nd in g wi th ad di ti on al co nt rib ut io ns

. If th e Pl an te rm in at es wit h a su r p l u s , t h e su rp lu s m ay be di st rib ut ed to [th e

em pl oyer]. ” Id

. “ [T]he real it y is th at a rel at iv el y m od es t lo ss to Pl an su rp lu s is a lo ss

on ly to . . . th e Pl an ’s sp on so r.” Id

.

-6

-B. Co mpl ai nt

In 20 14

, th e pl ai nt iff

s fil ed th e co ns ol id at ed am en de d co m pl ai nt se tt in g fo rth

7

a pu ta ti ve cl as s act io n ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt s, ch al le ng in g th ei r m an ag em en t of th e

Pl an fro m Sep te m

be r 30

, 20 07

, to Decem

be r 31

, 20 10

. Acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, th e
de fen da nt s v io la te d ERI SA Sect io ns 40 4, 4 05 , and 40 6, 2 9 U.S.C. § § 1 10 4– 06

.

The pl ai nt iff

s al le ge d th at by 20 07

, FAF ha d in ve st ed th e en ti re Pl an po rtf ol io

in eq ui ti es —d ire ct st oc k ho ld in gs or th ro ug h m ut ua l fu nd s th at FA F man ag ed
(“ Equ it ie s St rat eg y ”). Acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, well -acc ep te d pr in c ip le s of

di ve rs ifi cat io n pr ov id e th at a ret ire m en t po rtf ol io sh ou ld be in ve st ed in m ul ti pl e as se t

cl as se s rat he r th an in a si ng le cl as s. The y al le ge d th at di ve rs ifi cat io n am on g th e as se t

cl as se s red uc es th e ris k of la rg e lo ss es an d un cert ai nt y be cau se di ffer en t as se t cl as se s

hi st or ic al ly do no t m ov e up or do wn at th e sa m e ti m e. The pl ai nt iff s m ai nt ai ne d th at

be cau se th e Pl an was si gn ifi can tl y ov erfu nd ed by 20 07

, it di d no t ne ed to pu rs ue su ch

a hi gh -ri sk /h ig h- rewar d in ve st m en t st rat eg y to m eet it s pe ns io n ob li ga ti on s. The
pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at th e de fen da nt s st oo d to be ne fit f r o m t h e Equ it ie s St rat eg y ;

sp eci fic al ly, th ey cl ai m ed th at U.S. Ban co rp an d it s Bo ard m em be rs be ne fit te d fro m

th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y be cau se i t al lo wed U.S. Ban co rp to in crea se it s op erat in g

in co m e an d av oi d m in im

um em pl oyer co nt rib ut io ns to th e Pl an

. And th ey al le ge d th at

th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y b e ne fit te d th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s ho ld in g st oc k op ti on s,
whi ch were ex erci se d an d so ld at a hi gh er pr ic e be cau se U.S. Ban co rp ’s r e po rte d

in co m e (an d re su lt in g s to ck pri ce) was in crea se d b y th e ex ces s p en si on in co m e.

Bec au se th e de fen d a n t s pu t al l th e Pl an ’s as se ts in a si ng le hi gh er-r is k as se t

cl as s, th e pl ai nt iff

s al le ge d, in 20 08

, th e Pl an su ffer ed a lo ss of $1 .1 bi ll io n. The y
al le ge d th at th e Pl an lo st si gn ifi can tl y m or e m on ey in 20 08 th an it wou ld ha ve if th e
de fen d a n t s h a d pr op erl y di ve rs ifi ed it

. The $1 .1 bi ll io n lo ss red uc ed th e fu nd in g

The pl ai nt iff

s fi le d t he ir o rig in al co m

pl ai nt in 20 13

. 7

-7

-st at us of th e Pl an —i t went fro m be in g si gn ifi can tl y ov erfu nd ed in 20 07 to be in g 84

pe rcen t u nd erfu nd ed in 20 08

.

The pl ai nt iff

s clai m ed th at th e de fen da nt s fail ed to m on it or th e in ve st m en t of

Pl an as se ts an d te r mi n a te th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y

. Thi s fai lu re, acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, (1 ) vi ol at ed th e de f

en da nt s’ fid uc ia ry du ty of pr ud en ce un de r ERISA

be cau se it ex po se d th e Pl an to un ne ces sa r y ri sk ; (2 ) vi ol at ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ty t o
di ve rs ify pl an as se ts un de r ERISA be cau se in ve st in g an en ti re ret ire m en t po rtf ol io in

a si ng le as se t cl as s is no n- di ve rs ifi ed on it s face ; an d (3 ) vi ol at ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ty

of lo y al ty un de r ERISA be cau se th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y be ne fit te d th e de fen da nt s to th e
de tri m en t o f th e Pl an an d i ts pa rti ci pa nt s.

The pl ai nt iff

s al so al le ge d se ve ral vi ol at io ns of ERISA ba se d on th e pu rp or te d

co nf li ct s o f in te res t as so ci at ed wit h th e Pl an ’s as se ts be in g h eav il y in ve st ed in U.S.

Ban co rp ’s own m

ut ua l fu nd s (“FA F F un ds ”). By 20 07

, FAF ha d in ve st ed ov er 40

pe rcen t of th e Pl an ’s as se ts in th e FAF Fu nd s de sp it e th ei r co st in g m or e th an si m il ar

al te rn at iv e fu nd s. By in ve st in g th e Pl an ’s as se ts in U.S. Ban co rp ’s own pr op r ie ty

m ut ua l fu nd s, th e pl ai nt iff

s al le ge d, FAF an d U.S. Ban co rp rece iv ed m an ag em en t fe es

fro m th e Pl an , in crea se d th e to ta l as se ts un de r m an ag em en t to $1 .25 bi ll io n, an d were
ab le to at tra ct m or e in ve st or s. The pl ai nt iff s cl ai m th at

, as a res ul t, th e Pl an pa id to o

m uc h i n m an ag em en t fe es for th e FAF Fu nd s.

All eg ed ly, th es e ERISA vi ol at io ns ca use d signi fic an t lo ss es to th e Pl an ’s as se ts

in 20 08 an d res ul te d in th e Pl an ’s un de rfu nd ed st at us in 20 0 8 t h ro ug h th e

co m m en cem en t of th is su it in 20 13

. The pl ai nt iff s so ug h t t o r e c o ve r Pl an lo ss es , di sg or ge m en t of pr of

its

, inj uncti ve rel ie f, an d ot he r rem ed ia l rel ie f pu rs ua nt to ERISA

Sect io n 50 2( a)(2 ), 29 U.S.C. § 11 32 (a)( 2)

, an d ERISA Sect io n 40 9, 29 U.S.C. § 11 09

. The y al s o s o u g h t eq ui ta bl e rel ie f pu rs ua nt to ERISA Sect io n 50 2( a)(3 ), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1 13 2( a)(3 ).

-8

-C. Dis mis sa l Or de rs

The de fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt on va rio us gr ou nd s, in cl ud in g

t h at th e pl ai nt iff

s la ck ed Arti cl e III st an di ng , th at th ei r ERISA cl ai m s we r e t i meba rred

, an d th at th ei r pl ead in g fai le d to st at e a cl ai m on whi ch rel ie f co ul d be gr an te d.

On Nov em

be r 21

, 20 14

, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e mo t i o n t o di sm is s in pa rt an d

gr an te d it in pa rt. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d st at ut or y 8

an d Arti cl e III st an di ng to pu rs ue al l th ei r cl ai m s. Ade di pe v. U.S. Ban k, Na t’l Ass ’n
(Ade di pe I)

, 62 F. Su pp

. 3d 8 7 9

, 88 7– 96 (D. Mi nn

. 20 14 ). In de te rm in in g th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d Arti cl e III st an di ng , th e di st ric t cou rt no te d th at th e pl ai nt iff s di d “ no t

al le ge th at th ei r be ne fit le ve ls ha ve act ua ll y de crea se d as a res ul t of th e Defen da nt s’

al le ge d m is co nd uc t,” id

. at 89 1; th eref or e, th ey ha d “ no ‘clai m to an y pa rti cu la r as se t

th at co m po se s a pa rt of th e [P]lan ’s ge ne ral as se t po ol ,’ ” id

. at 89 0 (q uo ti ng Hug he s , 52 5 U.S. at 44 0)

. Bu t th e pl ai nt iff s di d al le ge th at th e de fen da nt s’ co nd uc t cau se d th e

Pl an to be co m e un de rfu nd ed in 20 08

, an d th e Pl an rem ai ne d in th at st at us th ro ug h th e

la wsu it ’s com m en cem en t. Id . at 8 91

.

Bas ed on th e Pl an ’s un de rfu nd ed st at us , th e p l a i n t iff s al le ge d th at th ey were

“ in jure d by th e in crea se d ris k of de fau lt th at aro se whe n t h e P la n’s li ab il it ie s

ex ceed ed it s as se ts as a res ul t of th e si gn ifi can t lo ss es cau se d by th e D e f e n d a nt s’

ERISA vi ol at io ns .” Id

. at 89 4. The co ur t ag reed

. It fo un d r e l e v a n t “ ERISA’s

m in im um fu nd in g st an da rd s.” Id

. Mea su red by th es e st an da rd s, th e co ur t st at ed

, “ th e

Pl an la ck ed a su rp lu s la rg e en ou gh to ab so rb th e lo ss es at is su e.” Id

. at 89 5. “ In ot he r

wor ds

, Pl ai nt iff

s’ in jury in fact was th at Defen da n t s ’ a c ti on s cau se d an ‘alle ge d

in crea s e d r i s k of de fau lt ’ an d ‘the co nc om it an t in crea se in th e ris k th at th e

pa rti ci pa nt s wil l no t rece iv e th e le ve l of be ne fit s th ey ha ve be en pr om is ed du e to th e

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d s u mm a r y jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s on th e 8 pl ai nt iff s’ se cu rit ie s- le nd in g cl ai m s an d di sm is se d th e cl ai m th at i nv es ti ng in FAF
fu nd s vi ol at ed th e Pl an do cu m e n t. The pl ai nt iff s do no t ch al le ng e th es e ru li ng s on
ap pe al

.

-9

-Pl an be in g in ad eq ua te ly fun de d a t t erm in at io n.’” Ade di pe v. U.S. Ban k, Na t’l

Ass ’n
(Ade di pe II)

, No. CV 13 -2 68 7 (J NE/J JK), 20 15 W L 11 21 71 75

, at *3 (D. Mi nn

. Dec.

29

, 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Ade di

pe I

, 62 F. Su pp

. 3d at 89 1)

. The co ur t al so de te rm in ed th at

th e pl ai nt iff

s ad eq u a t e l y al le ge d th at th e de fen da nt s’ ERISA vi ol at io ns cau se d th e

in crea se d ris k of de fau lt an d th at th e rel ie f th at th e pl ai nt iff s so ug ht (“ th e res to rat io n

to th e Pl an of th e as se ts th at were al le ge dl y lo st as a res ul t of th e Defen da nt s’

m is co nd uc t” ) wou ld “ rem ed y th e un de rfu nd in g th at is at th e ro ot of th ei r in jury.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ade di

pe I , 62 F. Sup p. 3 d a t 8 96 ).

Afte r co nc lu di ng th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d st an di ng , th e co ur t di sm is se d th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y

cla im s o n s ta tu te -o f-l im it at io ns gro un ds , con cl ud in g t ha t b ecau se

th e Pl an ha d be co m e in ve st ed en ti rel y in eq ui ti es se cu rit ie s m or e th an si x y ears be fo re

th e c o mm e nc em en t of th e su it

, th e cl ai m s were ti m e-b arre d un de r 29 U.S.C.
§ 11 13 (1 )(A). Ade di

pe I

, 62 F. Su pp

. 3d at 89 8– 99

. The co ur t fu rth er de te rm in ed th at

th e co m pl ai nt di d no t pl au si bl y al le ge a “ si gn ifi can t ” ch an ge in ci rcu m st an ces th at

wou l d “t r ig ge r an ob li ga ti on fo r fid uc ia rie s to in ve st ig at e whe th er al te rin g an

in ve st m en t st rat eg y pr ev io us ly de ci de d up on wou ld [b e] in th e be st in te res ts of th e pl an .” Id

. at 89 9. Fi na ll y , th e co u r t d en ie d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n to di sm is s th e pl ai nt iff s’ FAF Fu nd s cl ai m s ba se d on th e al le ge d co nf li ct s of in te res t an d pr oh ib it ed

tra ns act io ns

. Id . at 9 00 –0 2.

The reaf te r, th e de fen da nt s m ov ed to d is m is s th e act io n fo r la ck of st an di ng ,

ren ewin g an arg um en t rai se d in th e pr ev io us m ot io n to di sm is s. Ade di pe II

, 20 15 W L

11 21 71 75

, at *1

. The de fen da nt s ba se d th ei r m ot io n “ on th e fact ua l de ve lo pm en t th at

th e Pl an is no w ov erfu nd ed .” Id

. at *3

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at st an di ng was

th e wro ng d o c t r i n e to ap pl y gi ve n th e pr oc ed ur al po st ur e of th e cas e; in st ead

, th e

ap pl ic ab le do ct rin e was m oo tn es s. Id

. The co ur t id en ti fie d th e pl ai nt iff s’ in jury in fact

as “ th e in crea se d ris k of Pl an de fau lt

, or , pu t an ot he r way , th e in crea se d ris k th at Pl an
be ne fic ia rie s wil l no t rece iv e th e le ve l of be ne fit s th ey ha ve be en pr om is ed .” Id

. at *4

.

-1 0-The co ur t co nc lu de d th at be cau se th e Pl an is no w ov erfu nd ed

, th e pl ai nt iff s no lo ng er

ha ve a co nc ret e in te res t in th e m on et ary an d eq ui ta bl e rel ie f so ug ht t o r e med y th at

al le ge d i nju ry

. Id . at * 5. Th e co ur t d is m is se d t he en ti re ca se as m oo t.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, th e p la in ti ffs m ov ed fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d cos ts pu rs ua nt

to ERISA Sect io n 50 2( g)

, 29 U.S. C

. § 11 32 (g )(1 ). The pl ai nt iff s arg ue d th at th e
de fen da nt s’ vo lu nt ary co nt rib ut io n of m il li on s of do ll ars to th e Pl an aft er th e

co m m en cem en t o f t h e la wsu it co ns ti tu te d so m e su cces s on th e m eri ts be cau se th e

co nt rib ut io n was m ot iv at ed by th e li ti ga ti on

. The de fen da nt s res po nd ed “ th at in 20 14

th ey ag ai n m ad e ex ces s co nt rib ut io ns i n or de r to red uc e th e Pl an ’s in su ran ce

pr em iu m s.” Ade di

pe v. U.S. Ban k, Na t’l Ass ’n (Ade di pe III)

, N o

. CV 13 -2 68 7
(J NE/J JK), 20 16 W L 71 31 57 4, at *3 (D. Mi nn

. Mar

. 18

, 20 16 ). The di st ric t c ou rt

de ni e d th e pl ai nt iff

s’ m ot io n, fin di ng “ no ev id en ce th at Defen da nt s’ 20 14

co nt rib ut io n is an ‘out co m e’ of th e li ti ga ti on , as op po se d to an in de pe nd en t de ci si on

th at no ne th el es s af

fect ed th e v ia bi li ty of Pl ai nt iff s’ cas e.” Id . at * 4.

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap pe al

, th e pl ai nt iff

s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by (1 ) di sm is si ng th e

cas e as m oo t ba se d on th e Pl an ’s ov erfu nd ed st at us ; (2 ) di sm is si ng th e Equ it ie s

St rat eg y cl ai m on st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns an d pl ead in g gr ou nd s; an d (3 ) de nyin g th ei r

m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts

.

A. Dis mis sa l o

f ERIS A Cla ims Bas ed

on Pla n’ s Ove rf un de d S ta tu s
The pl ai nt iff

s arg ue th at th e d i s t r i ct co ur t erro ne ou sl y co nf la te d th e do ct rin e

of m oo tn es s wit h th e do ct rin e of st an di ng in ho ld in g th at th e Pl an ’s ov erfu nd ed st at us

m oo te d th e i r c a se

. The pl ai nt iff s co nt en d th at Har le

y an d it s pr og en y pr ov id e th at

whe th er a Pl an is un de rfu nd ed is a fact ua l i s s u e r e l e va nt on ly to th e in jury-in -fac t

el em en t of Arti cl e III st an di ng

. Thi s is su e, th e pl ai nt iff s co nt en d, is de te rm in ed at th e

co m m en cem en t of th e la wsu it

. Bec au se th e pl ai nt iff s sh owe d th at th e Pl an was

-1 1-un de rfu nd ed at th e co m m en cem en t of th e su it

, th ey m ai nt ai n, th ey ha ve sa ti sf ie d th e

Arti cl e III st an di ng req ui rem en t an d are no t req ui red to es ta bl is h th at st an di ng ag ai n.
And

, acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, th ei r cas e is no t m oo t b e c au se th ey are cap ab le of

rece iv i n g t h e v ari ou s fo rm s of rel ie f so ug ht in th e co m pl ai nt an d au th or iz ed by

ERISA; th at is , th ei r la wsu it can rem ed y th e Pl an ’s and th ei r own in juri es

.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t cou rt’s gran t of a m ot io n to di sm is s for lack of
juri sd ic ti on .” Doe v. Ni

xo n , 71 6 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ W e m ay affi rm ‘for

an y reas on su pp or te d b y t h e reco rd , e ve n if di ffer en t fro m th e reas on s gi ve n by t he

di st ric t co ur t.’” Rob bi ns v. Becke r , 79 4 F.3 d 98 8, 99 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Bis ho p
v. Gla zi er , 72 3 F .3d 95 7, 9 61 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) ).

Thi s cas e in vo lv es ERISA’s ci vi l en fo rcem en t pr ov i s i o n

. W e fir st ad dr es s

29 U.S.C. § 11 32 (a)( 2)

. S e c t i o n 11 32 (a)( 2) pr ov id es th at a pl an pa rti ci pa nt or
be ne fic ia ry m ay br in g a ci vi l act io n “ fo r ap pr op ria te rel ie f un de r se ct io n 11 09 of th is

ti tl e.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 11 32 (a)( 2) . Sect io n 1 10 9, i n t ur n, p ro vi de s:

(a) Any p e r s o n who is a fid uc ia ry wit h res pe ct to a pl an who br each es

an y of th e res po ns ib il it ie s, ob li ga ti on s, or d u t ie s im po se d up on fid uc ia rie s by th is su bc ha pt er sh al l be pe rs on al ly li ab le to m ak e go od to

su ch pl an an y lo ss es to th e pl an res ul ti ng fro m each su ch br each

, an d to

res to re to su ch pl an an y pr of it s of su ch fid uc ia ry whi ch ha ve be en m ad e th ro ug h us e of as se ts of th e pl an by th e fid uc ia ry , an d sh al l be su bjec t to

su ch ot he r eq ui ta bl e or rem ed ia l rel ie f as th e co ur t m ay de em
ap pr op ria te

, in cl ud in g rem ov al of su ch fid uc ia ry

. A fid uc ia ry m ay al so be rem ov ed for a vi ol at io n o f se ct io n 1 11 1 o f th is ti tl e.

(b ) No fid uc ia ry sh al l be li ab le wit h res pe ct to a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty

un de r th is su bc ha pt er if su ch br each was co m m it te d be fo re he b ecame a fi du ci ary or

aft er h e cea se d t o b e a fi du ci ary.

29 U.S.C. § 1 10 9.

-1 2-“ In Har le y , th is co ur t co nc lu de d th at § 11 32 (a)( 2) do es no t pe rm it a pa rti ci pa nt

i n a de fin ed -b en efi t pl an to br in g su it cl ai m in g li ab il it y un de r § 11 09 fo r a l l e g e d

br each es of fid uc ia ry du ti es w he n th e pl an is ov erfu nd ed .” McCu ll ou gh v. AEGON

USA Inc

., 58 5 F.3d 10 82

, 10 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Har le y , 28 4 F.3 d at 90 5– 07 ).

The Har le

y pl ai nt iff

s al le ge d th at th e p la n fid uc ia rie s of th e de fin ed be ne fit pl an in

whi ch th ey pa rti ci pa te d br each ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es by (1 ) in ad eq ua te ly

in ve st ig at in g an d m on it or in g a $2 0 m il li on in ve st m en t in a he dg e fu nd th at res ul te d

in a to ta l lo ss of th e in ve st m en t, an d (2 ) pe rm it ti ng th e pl an to en te r in to a pr oh ib it ed

tra ns act io n un de r 29 U.S.C. § 11 06 (b )(1 ) by pa y in g a $1 .17 m il li on fee to th e he dg e

fu nd ’s in ve st m en t ad vi so r. Har le y , 28 4 F .3d at 9 03 –0 4, 9 08

.

On ap pe al

, we affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t

di sm is si ng th e pl ai nt iff

s’ fai lu re-t o- in ve st ig at e a n d m on it or cl ai m s. Id

. at 90 7. Our

“ fo cu s [was ] on whe th er pl ai nt iff s ha [d ] st an di ng to br in g an act io n un de r § 11 32 (a)( 2) to se ek rel ie f un de r § 11 09 fo r th is pa rti cu la r br each of du ty, gi ve n th e

un iq ue feat ur es of a de fin ed be ne fit pl an .” Id

. at 90 5– 06

. W e h el d t ha t § 11 32 (a)( 2)

di d no t au th or iz e th e pl ai nt iff s to br in g su it be cau se “ th e Pl an ’s su rp lu s was

su ffi ci en tl y la rg e th at th e

. . . in ve st m en t lo ss di d no t cau se act ua l in jury to pl ai nt iff

s’

in te res ts in th e Pl an .” Id

. at 90 7. W e ex pl ai ne d t h a t “a c o n tr ar y co ns tr uc ti on [o f
§ 11 32 (a)( 2) ] wo ul d ra is e se rio us Arti cl e III cas e or co nt ro ve rs y co nc ern s” gi ve n th at

“ th e l i mi t s on jud ic ia l po wer im po se d by Arti cl e III co un se l ag ai ns t pe rm it ti ng

pa rti ci pa nt s or be ne fic ia rie s who ha ve su ffer ed no in jury in fact fro m su in g to en fo rce

ERISA fid uc ia ry du ti es on be ha lf of th e Pl an .” Id

. at 90 6 (fi rs t an d se co nd em ph as es
ad de d)

.

Bu t “ [t]he st at ut or y ho ld in g of Har le y di d no t res t so le l y o n c o n st it ut io na l

av oi da n c e

. ” M

c Cu ll ou gh

, 58 5 F.3 d at 10 87

. Ano th er cri ti cal co ns id erat io n fo r th e

co ur t was ERISA’s pr im ary pu rp os e—“ th e pr ot ect io n of in di vi du al pe ns io n rig ht s.”

-1 3-Har le

y , 28 4 F.3 d at 90 7 (q uo ti ng H.R. Rep

. No. 93 -5 33

, at 1 (1 97 4)

, as re pr in te d in

1 9 7 4 U

. S.C.C.A.N. 46 39

, 46 39 ). W e reas on ed th at th e pl an pa rti ci pa nt s’ an d

be ne fic ia rie s’ in di vi du al pe ns io n rig h t s were fu ll y pr ot ect ed ; in fact

, th ei r “ rig ht s

wou ld if anythi ng be ad ve rs el y affe ct ed by su bjec ti ng th e Pl an an d it s fid uc ia rie s to

co st ly li ti ga ti on br ou gh t by pa rti es who ha ve su ffer ed no in jury fro m a rel at iv el y

m od es t bu t al le ge dl y im pr ud en t in ve st m en t.” Id

. “ [T]he pu rp os es un de rlyin g 9

ERISA’s im

po si ti on of st ric t fid uc ia ry d u t i e s , ” we reas on ed

, “ are no t fu rth ered by

gr an ti ng pl ai nt iff

s st an di ng to pu rs ue th es e cl ai m s.” Id

. “ In ad di ti on to th e Arti cl e III

co ns ti tu ti on al li m it at io ns ,” we al so no te d th at “ pr ud e nt ia l pr in ci pl es be ar on th e

qu es ti on of st an di ng

. One of th os e pr in ci pl es is to req ui re th at ‘pla in ti ff’s co m pl ai nt

fal l wit hi n t h e z o n e o f in te res ts to be pr ot ect ed or reg ul at ed by th e st at ut e

. . . in

q u e s t i o n

. ’” Id

. (el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Val le y For ge Ch ri st ia n Co ll

. v. Ams

. Uni te d f or Se pa ra ti on of

Ch ur ch & St at e, In c. , 45 4 U.S. 4 64 , 47 5 (1 98 2) ).

In Har le y , we de te rm in ed “ th at a br each of a fid uc ia ry du ty cau se s no ha rm to

a pa rti ci pa nt whe n th e pl an is ov erfu nd ed

, an d t ha t al lo win g c os tl y li ti ga ti on wou ld

ru n co un te r to ERISA’s pu rp o s e of pr ot ect in g in di vi du al pe ns io n rig ht s. Tha t lo gi c

ap pl ie s whe th er a n act io n al le ge s a si ng le br each or a se rie s of br each es .”

McCu ll ou gh

, 58 5 F.3 d a t 10 87

. Add it io na ll y , ev en th ou gh Har le y “ ad dr es se d on ly

cl ai m s fo r m on et ary rel i e f

, ” “ [g ]ive n Har le

y ’s ho ld in g th at a pa rti ci pa nt su ffer s no

in jury as lo ng as th e pl an is su bs ta nt ia ll y ov erfu nd ed

. . . we [h av e fo un d] no ba si s to

co ns tru e § 11 32 (a)( 2) to au th or iz e an act io n ag ai ns t fid uc ia rie s of an ov erfu nd ed pl an

fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f, bu t n ot for th e m on et ary rel ie f so ug ht in Har le y .” Id

.

“ Alt ho ug h th e co ur t di d no t id en ti fy th e pr eci se te xt o f § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) (2 ) th at it 9

was co ns tru in g, we pr es um e th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e su it wou ld no t be on e ‘for

ap pr op ria te rel ie f’ und er t he cir cu m st an ces .” McCu ll ou gh , 58 5 F .3d at 1 08 4– 85

.

-1 4-“

Har le y was de ci de d on st at ut or y gr ou nd s,” no t on Arti cl e III st an di ng

. Id

. at

10 85 (em ph as is ad de d)

. W e ack no wled ge th at so m e refe ren ces in Har le y to st an di ng

m ay ha ve cau se d so m e co nf us io n fo r bo th th e pa rti es a n d th e di st ric t co ur t. “ The

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rece nt ly co m m en te d th at it ha s ob s e r ve d co nf us io n ab ou t th e

co nc ep t of st an di ng an d ha s su gg es te d th at th e us e of th at te rm in co nju nc ti on wit h

an y th in g ot he r th an th e ‘irred uc ib le co ns ti tu ti on al m in im um of st an di ng ’ pr ov id ed by

Arti cl e III s ho ul d b e d is fav or ed .” To va r v. Es se nt ia Heal th , 8 57 F.3 d 77 1, 77 4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Lexma rk In t’l

, In c. v. St at ic Co nt ro l Co mpo ne nt s, In c. , 13 4 S. Ct

. 13 77

, 13 86 (2 01 4) ). W e ha ve ack no wled ge d th e co nf u s io n th at th e “ th e te rm

‘stat ut or y st an di ng ’” cau se s; no ne th el es s, “ it s pu rp os e is cl ear: a pl ai nt iff who se ek s
rel ie f fo r vi ol at io n of a st at ut e m us t ‘fall [] wit hi n th e cl as s of p l a i n t i f f s w ho m

Co ng res s ha s au th or iz ed to su e’ u n d e r th at st at ut e.” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Lexma rk

, 13 4 S. Ct

. at 13 87 ). “ Dete r mi n i n g whe th er th is req ui rem en t is

sa ti sf ie d is ‘a st rai gh tfo rward qu es ti on of st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng

Lexma rk , 13 4 S . Ct. at 13 88 ).

In su m m ary, a care fu l read in g of Har le y sh ows th at th e is su e it ad dr es se d was
whe th er th e pl ai nt iff

s in th at cas e fel l wit hi n th e c l a s s of pl ai nt iff s who m Co ng res s

h as au th or iz ed un de r § 11 32 (a)( 2) to br in g su it cl ai m in g li ab il it y un de r § 1 1 0 9 f o r

al le ge d br each es of fid uc ia ry du ti es gi ve n th at th e pl an was ov erfu nd ed

. McCu ll ou gh

, 58 5 F.3 d a t 1 0 84 (ci ti ng Har le y , 28 4 F.3 d at 90 5– 07 ). Tha t is su e was res ol ve d on

st at ut or y gr ou nd s, no t Arti cl e III gr ou nd s, su ch as st an di ng or m oo tn es s. Har le y ho ld s (an d McCu ll ou gh affi rm s) th at whe n a pl an is ov erfu nd ed

, a pa rti ci pa nt in a de fin ed

b e n efi t pl an no lo ng er fal ls wit hi n th e cl as s of pl ai nt iff s au th or iz ed un de r § 1 1 3 2 ( a )(2 ) to br in g su it cl ai m in g li ab il it y un de r § 11 09 fo r al le ge d br each es of

fid uc ia ry du ti es

. Here, th e Pl an is ov erfu nd ed ; th eref or e, Har le y is ap pl ic ab le

, an d th e pl ai nt iff s no lo n ge r fal l wit hi n th e cl as s of pl ai nt iff s au th or iz ed to br in g su it

. The refo re, al th ou gh th e di st ric t cou rt di sm is se d th e cas e on m oo tn es s, th e di sm is sa l
(as far as it co nc ern s rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 2) ) was no ne th el es s pr op er, as we m ay

-1 5-a f

f irm th e di sm is sa l fo r an y reas on su pp or te d by t he reco rd

. Se e Rob bi ns , 7 94 F. 3 d

at 99 2. 1 0

W e di d no t ad dr es s whe th er “ a pl an pa rti ci pa nt m ay se ek in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3) ” in ei th er Har le y or McCu ll ou gh

. McCu ll ou gh

, 58 5 F.3 d at 10 87

.

“ [C]a s e s f

r o m ot he r ci rcu it s [h av e] co nc lu d[ ed ] th at a pl an pa rti ci pa nt m ay se ek

in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3) [ag ai ns t fid uc ia rie s of an ov erfu nd ed pl an ]. ” Id

. (ci ti ng Lo re n v. Blue Cr os s & Blu e S hi el d o f Mi ch ., 50 5 F .3d 59 8, 6 07 –1 0 (6 th Cir

. 20 07 ); Hor va th v. Key

st on e H e al th Pla n E., In c ., 33 3 F.3 d 45 0, 45 5– 56 (3 d Ci r.

20 03 )).

Sect io n 11 32 (a)( 3) pr ov id es th at a pl an pa rti ci pa nt or be ne fic ia ry m ay br in g a
ci v il act io n “ (A) to en

joi n an y act or pr act ic e whi ch vi ol at es an y pr ov is io n of th is

su bc ha pt er or th e te rm s of th e pl an , or (B) to ob ta in ot he r ap pr op ria te eq ui ta bl e rel ie f
(I) to red res s su ch vi ol at io ns or (ii ) to en fo rce an y pr ov is io ns of th is su bc ha pt er or th e

te rm s of th e pl an .” 29 U.S.C. § 11 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 )

. Sect io n “ 11 32 (a)( 3) is a ‘catch -al l’

The pl ai nt iff

s als o arg ue th at if we h ol d t ha t Har le y an d i ts pro ge ny requ ire 1 0

th at th e Pl an be un de rfu nd ed at th e co m m en cem e n t of th e la wsu it an d at ev ery

m om en t th ro ug ho ut th e li ti ga ti on , we m us t reco ns id er Har le

y in li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt st an di ng de ci si o n i n S p o k eo
, In c. v. Rob in s , 13 6 S. Ct

. 15 40

, 15 49 (2 01 6) (“ In de te rm in in g whe th er an in ta ng ib le ha rm co ns ti tu te s in jury in fact

, bo th
hi st or y an d t he jud gm en t o f Co ng res s p la y im po rta nt rol es . Beca us e th e d oc tri ne of

st an di ng de riv es fro m th e cas e-o r-co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t, an d be cau se th at

req ui r e men t in tu rn is gr ou nd ed in hi st or ic al pr act ic e, it is in st ru ct iv e to co ns id er whe th er an al le ge d in ta ng ib le h a r m h a s a cl os e rel at io ns hi p to a ha rm th at ha s
tra di ti on al ly be en reg ard ed as pr ov id in g a ba si s fo r a la wsu it in Eng li sh or Am eri can

co ur ts .”). As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, “ Har le y was de ci de d o n st at ut or y
gr ou nd s,” no t on Arti cl e III st an di ng

. McCu ll ou gh , 5 85 F.3 d at 10 85 . F ur th erm or e,

“ [t]he st at ut or y ho ld in g of Har le y di d no t res t so le ly on co ns ti tu ti on al av oi da nc e” bu t al so on “ ad va nc [in g] ERISA’s pr im ary pu rp os e of pr ot ect in g in di vi du al pe ns io n rig ht s.” Id . at 1 08 7.

-1 6-pr ov is io n th at ‘act[s ] as a sa fet y ne t, of feri ng ap pr op ria te eq ui ta bl e rel ie f fo r in juri es

cau se d by vi ol at io ns th at [§ 11 32 ] do es no t el se whe re ad eq ua te ly rem ed y .’ ” So eh nl en

v. Flee t Own er

s In s. Fun d

, 84 4 F.3 d 57 6, 58 3 (6 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Var it

y Co rp

. v. How e , 51 6 U.S. 48 9, 51 2 (1 99 6) ). Here, in ad di ti on to rel ie f

un de r § 11 32 (a)( 2)

, th e pl ai nt iff s so ug ht “ an y in

jun ct iv e rel ie f th at th e Co ur t deem s

ap pr op ria te ” pu rs ua nt to § 11 32 ( a ) ( 3)

. The Si xt h Ci rcu it rece nt ly reject ed pl an

pa rti ci pa nt s’ arg um en t th at “ th ey ne ed no t sh ow in di vi du al in jury to ob ta in in

jun ct iv e
rel ie f fo r a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty” pu rs ua nt to § 11 32 (a)( 3)

. So eh nl en , 84 4 F.3 d at

58 4. In do in g so , th e Si xt h Ci rcu it ex a mi n e d i t s pr io r op in io n in Lo re n an d th en
ob se rv ed :

W e reco gn iz e th at m is co nd uc t by th e ad m in is tra to rs of a be ne fit pl an

can crea te an in

jury if “ it c r e a t es or en ha nc es a ris k of de fau lt by th e

en ti re pl an .” La Rue v. DeW ol ff

, Bob er g & Ass oc ia te s , In c. , 55 2 U.S.
24 8, 25 5, 12 8 S. Ct

. 10 20

, 16 9 L. Ed. 2d 84 7 (2 00 8)

. Bu t Pla in ti ff s mak e

no sh ow in g of ac tu al or immi ne nt in ju ry to th e Pla n it

se lf

. Pl ai nt iff s

co nc ed e th is po in t by pl ead in g th at th e act io ns of th e fid uc ia rie s ex po se th e Pl an to pr os

pe ct iv e li ab il it y in th e amo u n t of $1 5,0 00 ,00 0. To th e

ex te nt th at Pl ai nt iff

s arg ue th at th e ris k of an en fo rcem en t act io n is it se lf

su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te an in jury, we fin d in th e ab se nc e of an y ev id en ce th at pe na lt ie s h av e b een lev ie d, p ai d, o r ev en co nt em pl at ed th at “ th es e ris k- ba se d th eo rie s of st an di ng [are ] un pe rs ua si ve , not le as t be caus e th ey

res t on a hi gh ly sp ecu la ti ve fo un da ti on la ck in g an y di sc ern ib le li m it in g
pr in ci pl e.” Dav id v. Alp hi n , 70 4 F.3 d 32 7, 33 8 (4 th C i r

. 2 0 1 3 )

. W e th eref or e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Pl ai nt iff s[ ] la ck st an di ng
to bri ng th is cla im

.

Id . at 5 85 (fi rs t em

ph as is ad de d) (fi rs t al te rat io n i n o rig in al ).

W hi le So eh nl en is ph ras ed in te rm s of Arti cl e III st an di ng , th e Si xt h Ci rcu it ’s

reco gn it io n th at th e pl ai nt iff s m us t “ m ak e [a] sh owi ng of ac tu al or immi ne nt in

ju ry

to th e Pl an it se lf,” id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

, un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3) is si m il ar to ou r ho ld in g

-1 7-in Har le

y th at § 11 32 (a)( 2) do es no t au th or iz e pl ai nt iff s to br in g su it whe n “ th e Pl an ’s

su rp lu s [is ] su ffi ci en tl y la rg e th at th e

. . . in ve st m en t lo ss di d no t cau se ac tu al in ju ry

to pl ai nt iff

s’ in te res ts in th e Pl an ,” Har le y , 28 4 F .3d at 9 07 (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

Und er bo th § 11 32 (a)( 2) an d (a)( 3)

, th e pl ai nt iff s m us t sh ow act ua l in

jury—to

th e pl ai nt iff

s’ in te res t in th e Pl an un de r (a)( 2) an d to th e Pl an it se lf un de r (a)( 3) —t o

fal l wit hi n th e cl as s of pl ai nt iff s who m Co ng res s ha s au th or iz ed to s u e u n de r th e

st at ut e. Giv en th at th e Pl an is ov erfu nd ed

, th ere is no “ act ua l or im m in en t in jury to

th e Pl an it se lf” that caused injury to t h e p l a i n t if f s’ interests in the Plan

. So eh nl en , 84 4

F.3 d at 58 5. For that reason, as in Harley and McCullough

, the plaintif f s’ suit is not one f

or appropriate relief

, and we hold that dism issal of the plaintif f s’ claim s f

or r e l i e f under
§ 1132(a)(3) was also proper

. 1 1

B. Att or ne

ys ’ Fees an d C

os ts

The pl ai nt iff

s ne xt arg ue th at if we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th ei r
cl ai m s ba se d on th e Pl an ’s ov erfu nd ed st at us , th en th ey are en ti tl ed to fees pu rs ua nt

to ERISA Sect io n 50 2( g) (1 ), whi ch pe rm it s “ th e co ur t i n i t s di sc ret io n [to ] al lo w a

reas on ab le at to rn ey ’s fee an d co st s of act io n to ei th er pa rty.” 29 U.S.C. § 11 32 (g )(1 ).

W e rev ie w fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of an award fo r

at to rn ey s’ fees an d co st s. McDo wel l v. Pri ce , 73 1 F.3 d 77 5, 78 3– 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ).

Bu t, as a th res ho ld m at te r, “ a fees cl ai m an t m us t sh ow ‘som e de gr ee of su cces s on th e

m eri ts ’ be fo re a co ur t m ay award at to rn ey ’s fees un de r § 11 32 (g )(1 ).” Har dt v.
Reli an ce St an da rd Li

fe In s. Co

. , 56 0 U.S. 2 42 , 25 5 (2 01 0) (q uo ti ng Ruc kel sh au s v.

Si er ra Cl ub

, 46 3 U.S. 68 0, 69 4 (1 98 3) ). Thi s st an da rd is no t sa ti sf ie d “ by ach ie vi ng
‘triv ia l s u c c e ss on th e m eri ts ’ or a ‘pur el y pr oc ed ur al vi ct or [y ]. ’” Id

. (al te rat io n in

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at al l of th e pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s were proper ly di sm is se d 1 1

ba se d on th e Pl an ’s ov erfu nd ed st at us , we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in di sm is si ng th e Equ it ie s St rat eg y cl ai m on st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns an d pl ead in g
gr ou nd s.

-1 8-or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ruc kel sh au s , 46 3 U.S. at 68 8 n.9 ). Bu t th e st an da rd is sa ti sf ie d “ if

th e c o u r t c a n f

a i rly cal l th e ou tc om e of th e li ti ga ti on so m e su cces s on th e m eri ts

wit ho ut co nd uc ti ng a ‘len gt hy in qu ir[ y ] in to th e qu es ti on whe th er a pa rti cu la r pa rty’ s

su cces s was ‘sub st an ti al ’ or oc cu rred on a ‘cent ral is su e.’” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Ruc kel

sh au s , 46 3 U.S. at 68 8 n .9).

Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t, th e pl ai nt iff s arg ue d th at th e y h a d ach ie ve d so m e

su cces s on th e m eri ts be cau se aft er th ey fil ed su it

, th e de fen da nt s, in 20 14

, m ad e $3 11

m il li on in vo lu nt ary ex ces s co nt rib ut io ns to th e Pl an

. Ade di pe III

, 20 16 W L 71 31 57 4,

at *4

. Acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, “ th ei r li ti ga ti on se rv ed as a cat al y st fo r Defen da nt s’

$3 11 m il li on co nt r ib ut io n.” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th is a fla wed arg um en t

be cau se n o ev id en ce ex is te d th at th e de fen da nt s’ 20 14 co nt rib ut io n was “ an

‘out co m e’ o f th e li ti ga ti on , a s op po se d to a n in de pe nd en t de ci si on th at no ne th el es s

affe ct ed th e vi ab il it y of Pl ai nt iff s’ cas e.” Id

. Acco rd in g to th e de fen da nt s, th ey m ad e

th e 20 14 co nt rib ut io n “ to red uc e th e Pl an ’s in su ran ce pr em iu m s.” Id

. a t * 3

. Th e
di st ric t co u r t fo un d th e de fen da nt s’ ex pl an at io n fo r th is ex ces s co nt rib ut io n “ to be

su pp or te d b y

th e rec or d” an d re co un te d t he reco rd ev id en ce as fol lo ws:

In 20 12

, Defen da nt s vo lu nt ari ly m ad e a $3 5 m il li on co nt rib ut io n. Han se n Dec l. ¶ 6 , Dkt . No. 2 64 ; se e a ls o Dkt

. No. 10 8– 1, Ex. E at 2– 1 (s ho win g Sep te m

be r 11

, 20 12 co nt rib ut io n o f $ 3 5 m il li on ). As

ex pl ai ne d in a s w o r n de cl arat io n by U.S. Ban co rp ’s Sen io r Vice

Pres id en t of Ben efi ts Des ig n, Dav id Han se n, th e co nt rib ut io n was m ad e in ord er t o red uc e th e ex pe ns iv e v ari ab le in su ran ce p rem iu m s t he Pla n

wou ld ot he rwis e ha ve be en req ui red to pa y fo r Pl an Year 20 11

. Han se n Decl

. ¶ 6. In 20 13

, be fo re Pl ai nt iff s fil ed su i t, Defen da nt s m ad e $1 63

m il li on of th e to ta l of $2 90 m il li on in vo lu n t a ry ex ces s co nt rib ut io ns th at ye a r , ag ai n to red uc e pr em iu m s, as well as fo r ot he r reas on s

un rel at ed t o th e li ti ga ti on

. Id

. ¶¶ 7– 8. Defen da nt s ex pl ai n th at in 20 14
th ey ag ai n m ad e ex ces s co nt rib ut io ns in or de r to red uc e th e Pl an ’s
in su ran ce pr em iu m s. Id

. ¶ 9. They no te th at th e ex ces s co nt rib ut io ns in
20 13 an d 20 14 br ou gh t th e Pl an ’s “ PBGC rat io ,” whi ch is us ed to

-1 9-cal cu la te th e req ui red in su ran ce pr em iu m s, al m os t ex act ly to th e rat io

th at wou ld m in im iz e pr em iu m co st s, th us co rro bo rat in g th is ex pl an at io n fo r Defen da nt s’ dec is io ns to m ak e th e co nt rib ut io ns

. Id . ¶¶ 8– 9.

Id

. (fo ot no te om it te d)

. Acco rd in g to th e c o u rt, th e pl ai nt iff s of fere d no ev id en ce
be y on d m ere sp ecu la ti on th at th e “ li ti ga ti on cau se d th e co nt rib ut io ns to th e Pl an .” Id

.

Add it io na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at “ no co ur t or de r sp ur red Defen da nt s’

act io ns , no r di d [th e di st ric t ] [ c ]o u r t ev er st at e th at it was li ke ly to gr an t su m m ary jud gm en t to Pl ai nt iff

s.” Id

. at *4 ; cf

. Har dt

, 56 0 U.S. at 25 6 (h ol di ng th at pl ai nt iff

, who se cl ai m fo r be ne fit s was de ni ed by in su rer, ach ie ve d so m e su cces s on th e m eri ts

of he r ERISA cl ai m whe n, al th ou gh th e pl ai nt iff “ fai le d to win su m m ary jud gm en t on
he r be ne fit s cl ai m, th e [d ]ist ric t [c]ou rt ne ve rth el es s fo un d ‘com pe ll in g ev id en ce’”

th at su pp or te d he r cas e an d st at ed th at it was in cl in ed to gr an t he r su m m ary jud gm en t

bu t fir st or de red th e in su rer to reco ns id er he r cl ai m an d th e in su rer, du rin g it s “ co ur tor de red rev ie w,” award ed th e pl ai nt iff th e cl ai m ed be ne fit s)

. In fact

, th e “ cas e was

st il l in t h e p l e a d i ng s st ag e whe n th e [c]ou rt di sm is se d it .” Ade di pe III

, 20 16 W L

71 31 57 4, at *4

.

“ Co ur ts wit hi n t he Eig ht h Circ ui t and el se whe re hav e fo un d t ha t an award of

at to rn ey ’s fees in an ERISA cas e m ay be pr op er whe n a pl ai nt iff ’s su it op erat ed as a

cat al y st to br in g a bo ut a vo lu nt ary ch an ge in th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t.” Gre at er St

. Lo ui s Co ns tr

. La bo re rs W el fa re Fun d v. X–L Co nt ra ct in g, In c ., No

. 4: 14 -CV-9 46 -SPM

, 20 16 W L 64 32 76 8, at *1 1 (E.D. Mo

. Oct. 31

, 20 16 ) (ci ti ng Boy le

v. In t’l Bhd

. of Tea mst er

s Lo ca l 86 3 W

el fa re Fun d

, 57 9 F. App ’x 72

, 77 –7 8 (3 d Ci r.

20 14 ) (d et erm in in g th at th e pl ai nt iff s ha d ach ie ve d so m e su cces s on th e m eri ts an d

co ul d rece iv e an award of at to rn ey s’ fees un de r th e cat al y st th eo ry whe re th e
de fen da nt s vo lu nt ari ly rei ns ta te d th e pl ai nt iff s’ be ne fit s bu t d i d s o o n ly aft er th e pl ai nt iff s fil ed su it ); Bro ad

be nt v. C i ti

gr ou p Lo ng Ter m Dis ab il it

y Pla n , No. CIV

13 –4 08 1– LLP, 20 15 W L 11 89 56 5, at *4 –5 (D.S.D. Mar

. 16

, 20 15 ) (d et erm in in g th at

-2 0-th e pl ai nt iff h a d a c h i e v e d so m e de gr ee of su cces s on th e m eri ts whe re th e la wsu it

“ se rv ed as a cat al y st to cau se [th e de fen da nt ] to pr ov id e he r wit h su bs ta nt ia ll y al l of

th e rel ie f s h e s o ug ht in he r co m pl ai nt ”); Gre en wa ld v. Li be rt y Li fe Ass ur an ce Co

. , No. 4: 12 –C V–3 03 4, 20 13 W L 37 16 41 6, at *3 (D. Neb

. Ju ly 12

, 20 13 ) (d et erm in in g

th at a pl ai nt iff can ob ta in fees un de r ERISA pu rs u a n t t o t h e cat al y st th eo ry ev en

th ou gh th e li ti ga ti on di d no t res ul t in a fav or ab le jud gm en t, if “ th e pr es su re of th e

la wsu it was a m at eri al co nt rib ut in g fact or in br in gi ng ab ou t ex tra jud ic ia l rel ie f,” an d

ex pl ai ni ng th at “ an award of at to rn ey fees un de r § 11 32 (g ) do es no t req ui re th e fee

cl ai m an t to ach ie ve pr ev ai li ng pa rty st at us ” an d th at “ ERISA is rem ed ia l le gi sl at io n,

an d sh ou ld be in te rp ret ed to ad va nc e Co ng res s’ go al s of pr ot ect in g em pl oyee rig ht s

an d se cu rin g effe ct iv e acce ss to fed eral co ur ts ” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ).

He re , the re co rd su pp or ts th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e pl ai nt iff s fai le d

to pr od uc e ev i d e n c e t h at th ei r la wsu it was a m at eri al co nt rib ut in g fact or in th e
de fen da nt s’ m ak in g t he 20 14 co nt rib ut io n res ul ti ng in th e Pl an ’s o ve rfu nd ed st at us

an d an y rel ie f th at th e pl ai nt iff s so ug ht in th ei r co m

pl ai nt

. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in d e n yi n g t h e pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n fo r

at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts

.

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I ag ree wit h th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at —u nd er Harl ey an d McC ul lo ug h— th e pl ai nt iff s la ck au th or iz at io n to su e un de r 29 U

. S

. C

. § 11 32 (a)( 2)

. Howev er, I

res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e co ur t’s ho ld in g th at th e pl ai nt iff s la ck au th or it y to br in g

t h e i r c l a im s fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r 29 U.S.C. § 11 32 (a)( 3)

. As rel ev an t

, § 1 13 2( a)(3 ) au th or iz es civ il act io ns “ by a part ic ip an t, b en efi ci ary, or f id uc ia ry (A)

-2 1-to en

joi n an y a ct or pr act ic e whi ch vi ol at es an y pr ov is io n of [2 9 U.S.C.
§§ 11 04 –1 10 6], or (B) to ob ta in ot he r ap pr op ria te eq ui ta bl e rel ie f (i) to red res s su ch

vi ol at io ns or (ii ) to en fo rce [§ § 11 04 –1 10 6].” In li gh t of th is un am bi gu ou s st at ut or y

te xt an d in th e ab s e n c e of an y di sp ut e th at th e pl ai nt iff s are pa rti ci pa nt s in an d

be ne fic ia rie s of th e Pl an , I b e li ev e th at th e pl ai nt iff s’ co m pl ai nt —wh ic h se ek s to

en joi n th e de fen da nt s fro m br each in g th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es un de r §§ 11 04 –1 10 6 in

rel at io n to th ei r m an ag em en t of th e Pl an

— f a l l s w i t h in “ th e zo ne of in te res ts to be

pr ot ect ed o r r e g u l at ed ” by ERISA. See Harl ey , 28 4 F.3 d at 90 7 (q uo ti ng Vall ey

Fo rg e, 45 4 U.S. at 47 5)

.

I al so be li ev e th at

—ac cep ti ng as tru e al l fact ua l al le ga ti on s i n th e pl ai nt iff s’

co m pl ai nt an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th ei r fav or , as we mu s t— th e

p la in ti ffs ha ve sh own an act ua l or im m in en t in jury. Cf. So eh nl en , 84 4 F.3 d at 58 5
(co nc lu di ng pl ai nt iff

s who m ad e “ no sh owi ng of act ua l or im m in en t in jury to th e Pl an

it se lf” la ck ed st an di ng ). Mo re sp eci fic al ly, th e pl ai nt iff s al le ge th at th e de fen da nt s

in ve st ed th e en ti ret y of th e Pl an ’s as se ts in hi gh -ri sk /h ig h- rewar d eq ui ti es , in

vi ol at io n of th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es un de r §§ 11 04 –1 10 6, an d th at as a res ul t, th e Pl an

su ffer ed a lo ss of $1 .1 bi ll io n, ca us in g th e Pl an to fal l fro m be in g si gn ifi can tl y

ov erfu nd ed in 20 07 to be in g 84 pe rcen t un de rfu nd ed in 20 08

. See Harl ey , 28 4 F.3 d

at 90 5 (rec og ni zi ng th at in ve st m en t lo ss es were co gn iz ab le lo ss es to th e ERISA pl an
be cau se th ey red uc ed th e po ol of pl an as se ts ). The rel ie f so ug ht is no t m on et ary, bu t

in jun ct iv e, an d th e in

jury al le ge d is no t sp ecu la ti ve

. Mo reo ve r, th e co m pl ai nt al le ge s

th at at le as t so m e of th e de fen da nt s co nt in ue to se rv e as Pl an fid uc ia rie s an d rem ai n

po si ti on ed to res um e th ei r al le ge d ERISA vi ol at io ns

. Cf. So eh nl en , 84 4 F.3 d at 58 5
(fi nd in g ris k of a po te nt ia l en fo rcem en t act io n to o sp ecu la ti ve to sa ti sf y req ui rem en t

of act ua l or im m in en t in

jury “ in th e ab se nc e of an y ev id en ce th at pe na lt ie s ha d be en
le vi ed

, pa id

, or ev en co nt em pl at ed ”). Fi na ll y , I do no t be li ev e th a t Harl ey or

McC ul lo ug h co nt ro ls ou r de ci si on in th is cas e as to whe th er pl ai nt iff s ha ve au th or it y

un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3) to su e fo r i n ju n c t i v e r el ie f. See McC ul lo ug h, 58 5 F.3 d at 10 87

-2 2-(ap pl y in g Harl ey as co nt ro ll in g ci rcu it pr eced en t on th e pl ai n t i f f ’s cl ai m fo r

in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 2)

, an d sp eci fic al ly no ti ng th at th e pl ai nt iff ha d no t

rel ie d o n § 11 32 (a)( 3) ).

Fo r th es e reas on s, I be li ev e th at th e pl ai nt iff s are au th or iz ed to su e fo r

in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3)

. I wou ld th eref or e affi rm t h e d i s t ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l of th e pl ai nt iff

s’ c la im s un de r § 1 13 2( a)(2 ), rev ers e th e di sm is sa l of th ei r
cl ai m s fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 11 32 (a)( 3)

, an d rem an d th is m at te r to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs , in cl ud in g reco ns id erat io n of th e is su e of at to rn ey ’s fees

an d c os ts up on fin al res ol ut io n o f th e cas e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 3-