# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 23 97

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

Jo hn Mei ne rs , on be ha lf o f a cl as s o f al l p ers on s s im il arl y si tu at ed , and on be ha lf of th e Wells Farg o & Co m

pa ny 40 1( k) Pla n

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

W el ls Farg o & Co m

pa ny; Hum an Res ou rces Co m m it te e o f th e Wells Farg o B oa rd of Dire ct or s; W el ls Farg o Em pl oyee Ben efi ts Rev ie w Comm it te e; Hop e Hard is on ; Ju st in Tho rn to n; Pat ric ia Cal la ha n; Mi ch ael Heid ; Ti m ot hy Slo an ; Ll oyd Dean ;

Jo hn Ch en ; Su sa n En ge l; Don al d J am es ; St ep he n S an ge r

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

an ts - App el le es

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

Secu rit ie s In du st ry

an d F in an ci al Mark et s As so ci at io n; Am eri can Ben efi ts C o u n c i l ; C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a ; E R I S A I n d u s t r y C o m m i t t e e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 18 Fi le d: Aug us t 3 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, ERICKSON, an d GRAS Z, Circ ui t J ud ge s.__ __ __ __ __ __

GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Jo hn Mei ne rs (“ Mei ne rs ”) ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ct co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng 1

hi s Co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m pu rs ua nt t o F e d

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ).

Mei ne rs cl ai m ed th at hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, W el ls Farg o & Co m pa ny (“ W el ls Farg o” ),

an d an as so rt m en t of W el ls Farg o ex ecu ti ve s an d en ti ti es (co ll ect iv el y , th e “ W el ls Farg o Defen da nt s” ) br each ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ty un de r th e Em pl oym en t Ret ire m en t

In c o me Secu rit y Act (“ ERISA”)

. He al le ge d two br each es : (1 ) ret ai ni ng W el ls Farg o’s pr op rie ta ry in ve st m en t fu nd s as op ti on s fo r W el ls Farg o em pl oyees’ 40 1( k)

ret ire m en t pl an (th e “ Pl an ”), an d (2 ) de fau lt in g to th es e pr op rie ta ry in ve st m en t fu nd s fo r Pl an pa rti ci pa nt s wh o d id no t el ect ot he r op ti on s.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Mei ne rs su ed th e W el ls Farg o Def en da nt s fo r br each of fid uc ia ry du ty u nd er
ERISA on be ha lf of th e Pl an an d on be ha lf of a pu rp or te d cl as s of si m il arl y si tu at ed

Pl an pa rti ci pa nt s. Dur in g th e rel ev an t ti m e pe rio d, th e Pl an all eg ed ly o ffer ed m or e th an two do zen in ve st m en t op ti on s, twel ve of whi ch were W el ls Farg o Do w Jo ne s Targ et Date Fu nd s (“ W el ls Farg o TDFs” ). The se W el ls Farg o fu nd s were al le ge dl y

m or e ex pe ns iv e (d ue to hi gh er fees ) th an co m pa rab l e V a n g u a rd an d Fi de li ty fu nd s

an d a ls o u nd erp erfo rm ed th e Van gu ard fun ds

.

In hi s Co m

pl ai nt
, Mei n e r s pl ed th ree co un ts ag ai ns t th e W el ls Farg o
De f en da nt s: (I) Brea ch of Dut y of Loyalty an d Pru de nc e Aga in st th e Ben efi t
Co m m it te e; (II) Brea ch of Co -Fi du ci ary Dut y Aga in st Defen da nt s Hum an Res ou rces

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1
Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Co m

m it te e, Hard is on , an d Tho rn to n; an d (III) K n o w i n g Part ic ip at io n in Brea ch of

Fi du ci ary Dut y Aga in st W el ls Farg o. All th ree co un ts rel ie d on Mei ne rs ’s cl ai m th at
th e W el ls Farg o D e f

e n da nt s br each ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es whe n th ey fai le d to

rem ov e th ei r in or di na te ly ex pe ns iv e an d un de rp erfo rm in g fu nd s fro m th e Pl an ’s

op ti on s. Mei ne rs fu rth er a l l e g e d t ha t th e br each oc cu rred be cau se th e W el ls Farg o Defen da nt s were m ax im iz in g th ei r own pr of it s, se le ct in g th ei r fu nd s as a de fau lt ou t
of im pr op er fin an ci al m ot iv es to ge ne rat e fees an d “ se ed ” (p ro vi de fin an ci al su pp or t
fo r) t he un de rp erfo rm in g fu nd s.

The W el ls F arg o Defen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s th e Co m pl ai nt un de r Fed

. R.
Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6 ), an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n. Mei ne rs ti m el y ap pe al ed

. W e aff irm.

II . Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

W e rev ie w de n o v o a g r an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s un de r Fed R. Ci v. P.

12 (b )(6 ). Ada ms v. Am. Fami ly Mut

. In s. Co.

, 81 3 F.3d 11 51

, 11 54 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

W e acce pt th e well -p le d al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt as tru e an d dr aw al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es in th e pl ai nt iff ’s f av or

. Sc hr ie ne r v. Qui cken Lo an s, In c. , 7 74 F.3 d 44 2,

44 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ To su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s, a c o mp l a i n t m us t co nt ai n

su ffi ci en t fa ct ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as t ru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e

on it s face .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l

, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) ). “ A cl ai m ha s f a c i al pl au si bi li ty whe n th e pl ai nt iff pl ead s fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t t o dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.”

I q b a l

, 55 6 U.S. at 67 8. If th e pl ed fact s are m erel y co ns is te nt wit h li ab le act s, t h e

co m pl ai nt “ st op s sh or t of th e li ne be twee n po ss ib il it y an d pl au si bi li ty.” Id

. (q uo ti ng
Be l l At l. Co rp

. v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 55 7 (2 00 7) ). In de ci di ng or rev ie w i n g

m ot io ns to di smi s s , co ur ts m ay al so co ns id er th os e m at eri al s th at are ne ces sa ril y

em br aced by the pl ead in gs

. Se e S ch ri en er , 77 4 F .3d at 4 44

.

-3

-II I. Ana ly si s

ERISA im

po se s two pr im ary du ti es on fid uc ia rie s: lo y al ty an d pr ud en ce.
Bra de n v . W

al -Ma rt St or es , In c. , 58 8 F.3d 58 5, 59 5 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) . “ [A] fidu ci ary sh al l di sc ha rg e hi s du ti es wit h res pe ct to a pl an so le ly in th e in te res t of th e

pa rti ci pa nt s an d be ne fic ia rie s

. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 11 04 (a)( 1)

. The fid uc ia ry sh al l al so di sc ha rg e it s du ti es “ wit h t h e c are, sk il l, pr ud en ce, an d di li ge nc e un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces th en pr ev ai li ng th at a pr ud en t m an act in g in a li ke cap aci ty an d fam il ia r wit h su ch m at te rs wou ld u s e in th e co nd uc t of an en te rp ris e of a li ke ch arac te r an d

wit h li ke ai m s.” Id

. To st at e a cl ai m fo r br each of fid uc ia ry du t y , “ a pl ai nt iff m us t

m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at th e de fen da nt act ed as a fid u c i a r y, br each ed it s fid uc ia ry du ti es , an d th ereb y cau se d a lo ss to th e Pl an .” Bra de n , 58 8 F.3 d at 59 4. Se e
29 U.S.C. § 1 10 9.

ERISA pl ai nt i f

f s c l a i m in g a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty ha ve a ch al le ng in g pl ead in g bu rd en be cau se of t h e i r di ffer en t le ve ls of kn owl ed ge reg ard in g wh at
in ve st m en t ch oi ces a pl an fid uc ia ry m ad e as co m pa red to ho w a pl an fid uc ia ry m ad e th os e c h o ic es

. Se e Pen si on Ben ef it Gua r. Co rp

. ex re l. St

. Vin cen t Ca th ol ic Med

. Cen te rs Ret. Pla n v. Mor

ga n St an le

y In v. Mgmt

. In c. , 71 2 F.3 d 70 5, 71 8– 19 (2 d Ci r.
20 13 ). ERISA pl ai nt iff

s typic al ly ha ve ex te ns iv e in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e se le ct ed

fu nd s b ecau se of ERI SA’s di sc lo su re req ui rem en ts

. Se e id

. at 7 19 –2 0. In co nt ras t,
th ey typic al ly la ck ex t e n s i v e in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e fid uc ia ry ’s “ m et ho ds an d

act ua l k no wled ge ” b ecau se th os e de ta il s “ te nd to be ‘in t he so le po ss es si on of [ th at
fid uc ia ry ]. ’” Id

. at 71 9 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Bra de n , 58 8 F.3 d at 59 8)

. As

a res ul t, th e ch al le ng e fo r ERISA pl ai nt iff s is to us e th e da ta ab ou t th e se le ct ed fu nd s

an d so m e ci rcu m st an ti al al le ga ti on s ab ou t m et ho ds to sh ow th at “ a pr ud en t fid uc ia ry in li ke ci rcu m st an ces wou ld ha ve act ed di ffer en tl y .” Id

. at 72 0. Se e al so 29 U.S.C. § 1 10 4( a)(1 )(B)

.

-4

-To sh ow th at “ a pr ud en t fid uc ia ry in li ke ci rcu m st an ces ” wou ld ha ve se le ct ed

a di ffer en t fu nd ba se d on th e co st or pe rfo rm an ce of th e se le ct ed fu nd

, a pl ai nt iff m us t

pr ov id e a so un d ba si s fo r co m pa ris on — a m ean in gf

ul be nc hm ark

. Fo r ex am

pl e, in

Bra de n , th e pl ai nt iff al le ge d th e m ark et in de x an d ot he r sh ares of th e sa m e fu nd

. Id

. at 59 5– 96

. Howev er, whi le reco gn iz in g th at Brad en st at ed a cl ai m , we cau ti on ed th at

“ ou r ul ti m at e co nc lu si on s res t on th e to ta li ty of th e sp eci fic al le ga ti on s in th is cas e”

an d th at “ we do no t su gg es t th at a cl ai m is st at ed by a ba re al le ga t i o n t h a t c h e ap er al te rn at iv e in ve st m en ts ex is t in th e m ark et pl ace.” Id

. at 59 6 n.7

. Bec au se of th e be nc hm ark al le ga ti on s, we co nc lu de d th e pl ai nt iff was no t “ req ui red to d e s c r i be

di rect ly th e way s in whi ch ap pe ll ees br each ed th ei r fid uc ia ry du ti es .” Id

. at 59 5. The

cri ti cal i n q u i r y, th en , is whe th er th e m is si ng fact ua l al le ga ti on s are fact s ab ou t th e fu nd s th em se lv es , whi ch ERISA pl ai nt iff s can res earc h, or fact s ab ou t th e fid uc ia ry ’s

in te rn al pro ces se s, wh ic h ERI SA pl ai nt iff s g en eral ly lack

.

A. Whe ther the W el ls Farg o T DFs We re a n Imprude nt Cho ic e

W it h th es e st an da rd s in m in d, we co nc lu de Mei ne rs ’s Co m pl ai nt fai ls to st at e

a pl au si bl e cl ai m b e c a u s e it la ck s “ su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e,” to
de m on st rat e th at th e Wells Farg o TDFs were an im pr ud en t cho ic e. Iq ba l , 55 6 U.S.

at 67 8.

Sp eci fic al ly, Mei ne rs di d no t pl ead fact s sh owi ng th e W el ls Farg o TDFs were

un de rp erfo rm in g fu nd s. He on ly p l e d th at on e Van gu ard fu nd

, whi ch he al le ge s is

co m pa rab le

, pe rfo rm ed be tt er t h a n th e W el ls Farg o TDFs. The fact th at on e fu nd

wit h a di ffer en t in ve st m en t st rat eg y u l t i m at el y pe rfo rm ed be tt er do es no t es ta bl is h 2

an y th in g ab ou t whe th er th e W el ls Farg o TDFs were an im pr ud en t ch oi ce at th e ou ts et

.

As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, “ W el ls Farg o fu nd s ha ve a hi gh er al lo cat io n of 2
bo nd [s ] th an Vang ua rd fun ds .”

-5

-Se e Tu ss ey v. ABB, In c. , 85 0 F

. 3 d 9 5 1

, 96 0 & n.8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). No au th or it y 3

req ui res a fid uc ia ry to pi ck th e be st pe rfo rm in g fu nd

. Cf

. Bra de n , 58 8 F.3 d at 59 6 n.7 (s ta ti ng th at fid uc ia rie s are no t req ui red by ERISA to s e l ect “ th e ch eap es t po ss ib le

fu nd ” av ai la bl e in th e m ark et ) (q uo ti ng Hecke r v. Deer e & Co

. , 55 6 F.3 d 57 5, 58 6 (7 th Cir . 20 09 )).

W e reco gn iz e th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e Van gu ard fu nd ’s

pe rfo rm an ce was no t a m ean in gf ul be nc hm ark by co ns id eri ng pr os pe c tu se s no t

at ta ch ed to th e Co m

pl ai nt

. Thi s was no t im

pr op er. The di st ric t co ur t, li ke th is Co ur t,
i s al lo wed to lo ok at m at te rs ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs if th os e m at te rs are ne ce s s a r i l y

em br aced by th e pl ead in gs

. Mat te s v. ABC Pla st ic s, In c. , 32 3 F.3 d 69 5, 69 7 n.4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 ). 4

W e are al so un pe rs ua de d by Mei ne rs ’s arg um en t th at th e We l l s F arg o TDFs

were t oo ex pe ns iv e d ue to th ei r fee s. Th e arg um en t ex pa nd s ap pl ic at io n o f Bra de n in ex act ly th e way

we warn ed ag ai ns t. Se e Bra de n , 58 8 F .3d at 5 96 n.7

. W e fo un d

th at di ffer en t sh a r e s o f th e sa m e fu nd were a m ean in gf ul be nc hm ark

, bu t Mei ne rs do es no t m at ch th at be nc hm ark by al le gi ng th at ch eap er al te rn at iv e in ve st m en ts wit h

so me si m il ari ti es ex is t in th e m ark et p l a c e

. S u ch an ex pa ns io n of Bra de n is

W hi le Mei ne rs is co rrec t th at Tu ss ey ad dr es se d a sp eci fic da m ag es is su e, no t 3 pl ead in gs , we fin d it s reas on in g on th is pa rti cu la r po in t equ al ly ap pl ic ab le he re: th e ch oi ce of a pa rti cu la r fu nd is no t fla wed m erel y be cau se of th e ex is te nc e of on e fu nd th at en de d u p p erfo rm in g b et te r.

Mei ne rs m ay be co rrec t th at cert ai n fact ua l fin di ng s m ad e by th e di st ric t co ur t 4

reg ard in g Van gu ard were im pr op er at th is st ag e. Ho w e v e r, th e di st ric t co ur t was

co rrec t to reco gn iz e a po te nt ia l pa tt ern of pl ai nt iff s tryin g to co nv ert fai lu re to in ve st in Va n g ua rd

, wit ho ut m or e, in to a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty. Se e, e.g

. , Amro n v. Mor ga n St an le

y In v. Adv is or

s In c. , 4 64 F.3 d 33 8, 34 5 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ). B e c a u se th e ot he r fin di ng s reg ard in g Van gu ard were un ne ces sa ry to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on , we do no t re ach th em

.

-6

-in ap pr op ria te be cau se it pe rm it s pl ai nt iff s to do dg e th e req ui rem en t fo r a m ean in gf ul

b e nc hm ark by m erel y fin di ng a le ss ex pe ns iv e al te rn at iv e fu nd or two wit h so me si m il ari ty. 5

A few di st ric t co ur t op in io ns ap pe ar to su pp or t Mei ne rs ’s arg um en t, bu t we do

no t fin d th em pe rs ua si ve

. W e di sa gr ee with th e rat io na le of th es e cas es be cau se we be li ev e th e e x i s t e nc e of a ch eap er fu nd do es no t m ean th at a pa rti cu la r fu nd is to o

ex pe ns iv e in th e mar ket ge ne ra ll y or th at it is ot he rwis e an im pr ud en t ch oi ce. Any

ot he r co nc lu si on wou ld ex em pt ERISA pl ai nt iff

s bo th fro m pl ead in g be nc hm ark s fo r th e f u n d s a n d fro m pl ead in g in te rn al pr oc es se s ab ou t se le ct in g fu nd s. An ERISA pl ai nt iff m

us t of f e r mo r e th an “ la be ls an d co nc lu si on s” ab ou t th e fees be fo re a

c om pl ai nt st at es a cl ai m

. Se e Two mbl y , 5 50 U.S. a t 55 5. W e de cl in e to fo l l o w t h e di st ric t co ur t o pi ni on s t ha t co nc lu de d o th erwi se

.

W e ho ld th at Mei ne rs ha s fai le d to al le ge su ffi ci en t fact s to de m on st rat e th at
th e Wells Farg o TDFs were an im pr ud en t ch oi ce.

B. Whe ther the W el ls Farg o Def enda nts Eng ag ed i n Unla w ful Cond uct

Abs en t an y well -p le d fact ua l al le ga ti on s th at th e W el ls Farg o f un ds were an im pr ud en t ch oi ce, no in fere nc e can be reas on ab ly dr awn th at th e W el ls Farg o Defen da nt s ret ai ne d th os e fu nd s (o r m ad e th em de fau lt in ve st m en ts ) ou t of im pr op er

m ot iv es

. W e can no t reas on ab ly i n f e r t h e y act ed ou t of a m ot iv e to se ed

un de rp erfo rm in g or in or di na te ly ex pe ns iv e fu nd s if Mei ne rs h a s n o t pl au si bl y pl ed

th at th os e fu nd s were, in fact

, un de rp erfo r mi n g o r in or di na te ly ex pe ns iv e. Se e

Mei ne rs ’s al te rn at iv e pl ead in g th at “ effe ct iv el y ” as se ss in g “ do ub le ch arg es ” 5

m ak es an in ve st m en t fee to o ex pe ns iv e is al so un pe rs ua si ve

. It is “ [t]he to ta l fee, no t th e in te rn al

, po st -co ll ect io n di st rib ut io n o f th e fee” th at is th e m at eri al fig ur e fo r

as se ss in g th e reas on ab le ne ss of a fee. Hecke r v. Deer e & Co

. , 55 6 F.3 d 57 5, 58 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

-7

-Bra de n , 58 8 F.3 d at 59 7 (“ An in fere nc e pr es se d by th e pl ai nt iff is no t pl au si bl e if th e

fact s he po in ts to are pr eci se ly th e res ul t on e wou ld ex pe ct fro m la wf u l co nd uc t in

whi ch th e de fen da nt is kn own to h a v e e n ga ge d.” ). W hi le pl ai nt iff s ne ed no t reb ut

ev ery po ss ib le la wfu l reas on fo r ret ai ni n g a p a r ti cu la r in ve st m en t op ti on , id

. at
59 6– 97

, th ey m

us t es ta bl is h th at a fu nd is an im pr ud en t ch oi ce be fo re th ey are en ti tl ed

to an in fere nc e su pp or ti ng th ei r a ll eg at io ns of un la wfu l reas on s fo r ret ai ni ng it

. Bec au se Mei n ers ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h an im pr ud en t ch oi ce, hi s co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s of ba d co nd uc t do no t sa ve hi s Co m pl ai nt fro m it s de fic ie nt pl ead in g

reg ard in g t he W el ls Farg o TDFs

.

C. View in g th e Compla in t as a W ho le

Fi na ll y , we se e no m eri t in Mei ne rs ’s accu sa ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d

to co ns id er th e C o mpla in t as a who le

. The di st ric t co ur t's su m m ary st at em en t is

ex act ly rig ht : “ Tak en as a who le

, th e co m pl ai nt m erel y su pp o r t s an in fere nc e th at

W el ls Farg o co nt in ue d to in ve st in affi li at ed ta rg et da te fu nd s whe n it s rat e of ret ur n

was lo wer th an Van gu ard

, whi ch ha d a di ffer en t i nv es tm en t st rat eg y , an d th at was

m or e ex pe ns iv e th an Van gu ard an d F i d el it y fu nd s.” Add

. at 9– 10

. Co ns eq ue nt ly,

“ The se al le ga ti on s do no t gi ve ris e to an in fere nc e of a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, an d

as a res ul t, t ha t cl ai m

m us t b e d is m is se d.” Id

.

Fu rth erm or e, it is cl ear th e di st ric t cou rt read th e Co m pl ai nt as a who le when

it req ui red Mei ne r s t o pa ir al le ga ti on s of se lf- in te res t wit h al le ga ti on s of an im pr ud en tl y ch os en fu nd in or de r to su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s. W he n bo th la wfu l

an d un la wfu l co nd uc t wou ld ha ve res ul te d in th e sa m e de ci si on , a pl ai nt iff do es no t

su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s by ba ld ly as se rti ng th at un la wfu l co nd uc t oc cu rred

. Se e
Pen si on Ben ef

it Gua r. Co rp

. , 71 2 F.3 d at 71 9 (“ [T]he pr ic e o f e nt ry , ev en to
di sc ov ery, is fo r th e pl ai nt iff to al le ge a fa ct ua l pr ed ic at e co nc ret e en ou gh to warra nt
fu rth er pr oc eed in gs , whi ch m ay be co st ly an d bu rd en so m e.”(q uo ti ng DM Rese ar ch

, In c. v. Co ll . of

Am. P at ho lo gi st

s , 17 0 F .3d 53 , 55 (1s t Ci r. 19 99 ))).

-8

-Bec au se th e Co m pl ai nt fai le d to pl au si bl y al le ge a br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, an d

be cau se al l of th e cl ai m s in th is cas e rel ie d on su ch a br each

, th e Co m pl ai nt fai le d to

st at e a cl ai m

up on whi ch rel ie f can be gra nt ed

.

IV. Co ncl us io n

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Mei ne rs ’s om is si on of an y

m ean in gf ul b en ch m ark in hi s Co m pl ai nt m ean t th at he fai le d to al le ge an y fact s sh owi ng th e W el ls Farg o TDF s w ere an im pr ud en t ch oi ce. As a res ul t, Mei ne rs ’s

Co m pl ai nt fai le d to st at e a cl ai m fo r rel ie f un de r ERISA an d we affi rm it s di sm is sa l.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-