[Civ. No. 11-1083 Dkt. Nos. 143, 144, 148, 149]

[Civ. No. 14-1611 Dkt. Nos. 34, 37, 41, 42]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil No. 11-1083 (RMB/KMW)

v.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil No. 14-1611 (RMB/KMW)

v. ORDER

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLP,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the filing of 

eight motions in the above-captioned cases by Hartford 

Investment Financial Service, LLC; Hartford Funds Management 

Company (together with Hartford Investment Financial Service, 

LLC, the “Hartford Defendants”); Wellington Management Company, 

LLP; Wellington Management Group, LLP (together with Wellington 

Management Company, LLP, “Wellington”); and all individual 

plaintiffs in this matter (the “Plaintiffs”); and

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 181 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 9728
2

THE COURT having read and considered the filings by each 

party and all other materials of record; and

FOR THE REASONS set forth in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS HEREBY on this 24th day of March 2016, 

ORDERED that Wellington’s motions to intervene for purposes 

of sealing, [Civ. No. 11-1083 Dkt. No. 149, Civ. No. 14-1611 

Dkt. No. 42], are GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Hartford Defendants’ motions to seal, [Civ. 

No. 11-1083 Dkt. No. 148; Civ. No. 14-1611 Dkt. No. 41], are

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Hartford Defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment, [Civ. No. 11-1083 Dkt. No. 143; Civ. No. 14-1611 Dkt. 

No. 37], are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Hartford 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted insofar as 

this Court determines Plaintiffs do not possess standing to 

proceed with regard to the Small Company Fund and the Floating 

Rate Fund. Additionally, the Hartford Defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment are granted insofar as they seek a 

determination that the Board’s approval of the mutual fund fees 

is entitled to “substantial weight.” The Hartford Defendants’ 

motions for summary judgment are denied insofar as they seek a 

determination that, notwithstanding this substantial weight, the 

mutual fund fees are excessive under Jones v. Harris Assocs. 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 181 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 9729
3

L.P., 559 U.S. 335 (2010) and Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset 

Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982); and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary 

judgment, [Civ. No. 11-1083 Dkt. No. 144; Civ. No. 14-1611 Dkt. 

No. 34], are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motions 

are granted insofar as they seek a determination of availability 

of post-filing damages. The motions are denied insofar as they 

seek a determination of the availability of disgorgement as a 

remedy. Further, the motions are denied insofar as they seek a 

determination of liability under Section 36(b) of the Investment 

Companies Act of 1940; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the 

associated Opinion under seal; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the filing of this 

Order, the Hartford Defendants shall file a proposed redacted 

version of the Opinion for public access.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 181 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 9730