Document: 128 S. Ct. 1020 (2008) James LaRUE, Petitioner, v. DeWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. No. 06-856. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 26, 2007. Decided February 20, 2008. *1022 Peter K. Stris, Costa Mesa, CA, for petitioner. Matthew D. Roberts, the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Thomas P. Gies, Washington, DC, respondents. Jean-Claude Andre, Sarah E. Andre Ivey, Smith Ramirez, Los Angeles, Robert Hoskins, Foster Law Firm, LLP, Greenville, SC, Counsel Record, Whittier School, Brendan Maher, Dallas, Texas, Shaun Martin, University San Diego, School Law, Clifton Elgarten, Ellen M. Dwyer, Crowell Moring Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. In Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 105 3085, 87 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1985), we held that a participant in disability plan paid fixed level benefits could not bring suit under § 502(a)(2) Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2), to recover consequential damages arising from delay processing her claim. this case consider whether statutory provision authorizes defined contribution pension sue fiduciary whose alleged misconduct impaired value assets participant's individual account.[1] Relying on our decision Appeals Fourth Circuit "provides remedies only entire plans, individuals .... Recovery subsection must `inure[] benefit whole,' particular persons with rights plan." 450 F.3d 570, 572-573 (C.A.4 2006) (quoting U.S., at 140, 3085). While language Russell is consistent conclusion, rationale Russell's holding supports opposite result case. I Petitioner filed action 2004 against his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg Associates (DeWolff), and ERISA-regulated 401(k) retirement savings administered DeWolff (Plan). The Plan permits participants direct investment their contributions accordance specified procedures requirements. 2001 2002 he directed make certain changes investments account, but never carried out these directions. *1023 claimed omission "depleted" interest approximately $150,000, amounted breach duty ERISA. complaint sought "`make-whole' or other equitable relief allowed [§ 502(a)(3) ]," well "such further court deems just proper." Civil Action 2:XX-XXXX-XX (D.S.C.), p. 4, 2 Doc. 1. Respondents motion judgment pleadings, arguing was essentially claim monetary recoverable 502(a)(3). countered "d[id] wish award him any money, ... simply want[ed] properly reflect which would be plan, duty." Reply Defendants Motion Dismiss, 7, 3 id., 17. District concluded, however, since respondents did possess disputed funds rightly belonged petitioner, seeking rather than available Assuming, arguendo, had breached duty, nonetheless granted motion. On appeal petitioner argued cognizable §§ stated raised argument first time appeal, nevertheless rejected it merits. Section provides suits enforce liability-creating provisions 409, concerning breaches duties harm plans.[2] cited suggesting "protect an beneficiary." 142, 3085. It then characterized remedy "personal" because "desires recovery into instrument exists specifically benefit," concluded: "We are therefore skeptical plaintiff's remedial can serve legitimate proxy its entirety, ] requires. To sure, plaintiff seeks seen accruing narrow sense part plan. But such view finds no license text, threatens undermine careful limitations Congress has placed scope ERISA relief." F.3d, 574. also petitioner's make-whole "equitable" within meaning Although grant certiorari, 551 ___, 127 2971, 168 702 (2007), encompassed issue, do address conclude misread 502(a)(2). *1024 II As comes us assume obligations 409(a), those adverse impact account. Whether prove allegations may have valid defenses matters before us.[3] record does reveal relative size legal issue same account includes 1% 99% total explained more detail later Varity Corp. Howe, 516 489, 508-512, 116 1065, 134 130 (1996), 502(a) identifies six types civil actions brought various parties. second, case, Secretary Labor participants, beneficiaries, fiduciaries, behalf violations 409(a). principal imposed fiduciaries section "relate proper management, administration, fund assets," eye toward ensuring "the authorized plan" ultimately beneficiaries. 3085; see Varity, 511-512, 1065 (noting 409's "relat[e] plan's financial integrity" "reflec[t] congressional concern about asset management"). falls squarely category.[4] contrast, fell outside category. received all she contractually entitled, 136-137, provide type injury, stressed text 409(a) characterizes relevant relationship one "with respect plan," repeatedly "plan" victim recipient relief. See legislative history likewise revealed crucible misuse mismanagement administrators." Id., 141, n. 8, Finally, review whole confirmed 409 protect integrity 9, whereas *1025 claims benefits. 143-144, 3085 (discussing 502(a)(1)(B) 503). We "A fair contextual reading statute makes abundantly clear draftsmen were primarily concerned possible assets, emphasis protecting "entire reflects landscape employee plans. That changed. Defined plans dominate scene today.[5] when enacted, decided, [defined benefit] norm American practice." J. Langbein, Stabile, B. Wolk, Pension Benefit 58 (4th ed.2006); Zelinsky, Contribution Paradigm, 114 Yale L.J. 451, 471 (2004) "significant reversal historic patterns traditional dominant paradigm income"). Unlike accounts; based percentage employee's salary. Co., 722 F.2d 482, 486 (C.A.9 1983). speaks pay Misconduct administrators will affect individual's entitlement unless creates enhances risk default prompted require (but plans) satisfy complex minimum funding requirements, premium payments Guaranty Corporation termination insurance. J., 475-478. For need threaten solvency reduce below amount otherwise receive. diminishes payable tied accounts, kind harms 409. Consequently, references accurately operation context, beside point context. Other sections confirm appears nowhere 502(a)(2), apply Most significant 404(c), exempts liability losses caused participants' exercise control over accounts. CFR 2550.404c-1 (2007). This real purpose if, *1026 argue, hold although injuries distinct injuries, authorize impair Accordingly, vacated, remanded proceedings opinion.[6] so ordered. Chief ROBERTS, whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, concurring judgment. below, concluded loss LaRue's permit "serve entirety," thus barring 1132(a)(2). 574 (2006). today rejects reasoning. ante, 1023-1024, 1025-1026. agree Circuit's analysis flawed, join Court's extent. goes cases present one. true. right governed 1022-1023. action, due alleged, instruction. claim, therefore, turns application interpretation terms, governing options how them. least arguable nature lies allows beneficiary "to terms clarify future 1132(a)(1)(B). difficult imagine accurate description And fact claimants alleging similar denials violation terms. See, e.g., Hess Reg-Ellen Machine Tool Corp., 423 653, 657 (C.A.7 2005) (allegation made administrator wrongfully denied instruction move employer's stock diversified account). If LaRue 502(a)(1)(B), well. "appropriate" Construing term parallel provision, if another offers adequate remedy. 515, (1996). Applying accord *1027 usual preference construing "same [to] different statute," Barnhill Johnson, 503 393, 406, 112 1386, 118 39 (1992), " `comprehensive reticulated statute'" "carefully integrated enforcement provisions," 146 (1985) Nachman Corporation, 446 359, 361, 100 1723, 64 354 (1980)). variety contexts, some Courts accordingly prevented plaintiffs recasting what essence plan-derived should Coyne Delany Blue Cross Shield Va., Inc., 102 712, 714 1996). disagreed approach. Graden Conexant Systems 496 291, 301 (C.A.3 2007). significance distinction between merely matter picking cite complaint. Allowing recast might circumvent safeguards developed 502(a)(1)(B). Among requirement, recognized almost Appeals, Fallick Nationwide 162 410, 418, 4 (C.A.6 1998) (citing cases), exhaust administrative mandated 503, 1133, filing 502(a)(1)(B).[*] Equally significant, discretion determining eligibility decisions courts abuse discretion. Firestone Tire Rubber Bruch, 489 101, 115, 109 948, 103 80 (1989). These encourage employers others undertake voluntary step providing medical Aetna Health Inc. Davila, 542 200, 215, 124 2488, 159 312 (2004), doubt engendered substantial reliance interests fiduciaries. really "under [the] circumventing mean suggest settled questions. They not. Nor position answer rely source relief, occasion argument, availability precludes Brief Industry Committee Amicus Curiae 13-30. highlight determination reached without considering alters conclusion. Parcel Service, Mitchell, 451 56, 60, 2, 101 1559, 67 732 (1981) general reluctance arguments *1028 considered below). interpretation, where principles stare decisis greatest effect, important seem decide do. nothing today's precluding lower remand, they determine them, contention proceed event, remain free notwhat effect ability THOMAS, SCALIA alleges ERISA's [ERISA's] draftsmen" compels my decision. Ante, 1025. ERISA, 1109, read together entity," seek 139-144, majority accepts fundamental holding, reins suggestion meant 1023-1026; supra, states emphasizing sensible historical context subsequent proliferation rendered dictum inapplicable most modern cases. concluding suffered "creates 409," holds majority's write separately contingent trends market. depend ostensible "concerns" drafters. Rather, conclusion flows unambiguous applied "[a] brought" "participant, fiduciary," Labor, obtain "appropriate relief" "[a]ny person who shall personally liable good resulting each [fiduciary] breach, restore profits been through use ...." 1109(a) (emphasis added). plain uses five times, leaves Likewise, Congress' repeated word "any" clarifies key factor said kind. *1029 Ali Federal Bureau Prisons, ___ 831, 836, L.Ed.2d natural "one indiscriminately whatever kind" (internal quotation marks omitted)). face, breach. question presented here, then, respondents' were, allocated assets. requires (including "gains losses" recoveries) bookkeeping purposes accounts beneficial turn amounts. 1002(34) (defining "defined "plan solely upon contributed income, expenses, gains losses, forfeitures account"). Thus, sustains reflected balances affected allocation change A collection unrelated combined trust legally owned trustees. 1103(a) (providing "all trustees"). short, constitute, very least, sum Because parts, attributable necessarily "losses aggregate diminished amount, plan.[*] NOTES [1] names imply, "individual promises retirement, largely function amounts performance contributions. generally typically years service compensation. 3(34)-(35), 1002(34)-(35); Schneider Freedman, ERISA: Comprehensive Guide 3.02 (2d ed.2003). [2] provides: "Any responsibilities, obligations, title fiduciary, subject deem appropriate, including removal fiduciary. removed 411 Act." 886, 1109(a). [3] example, directions requirements Plan, required set forth federal pursuant asserted timely fashion. [4] $150,000 injury represents decline sold increase purchased. Contrary encompasses appropriate "lost profits." 12-13. Under common law trusts, informs duties, 496-497, trustees "chargeable profit accrued estate there trust," forgone trustee "fails purchase specific property purchase." 1 Restatement (Second) Trusts 205, Comment i, 211 (1957); A. Scott, (3d ed.1967). [5] Rajnes, An Evolving System: Trends Plans, Research Institute (EBRI) Issue 249 (Sept. 2002), http://www.ebri.org/ pdf/ briefspdf/0902ib.pdf (all Internet materials visited Jan. 28, 2008, Clerk file); Facts EBRI: Over Past Quarter-Century (June 2007), http:// www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/facts/0607fact. pdf. [6] After certiorari dismiss writ, contending moot longer Plan. withdrawal relevance moot. "participant," 3(7) 1002(7), include colorable Harzewski Guidant 799 [*] Sensibly, open exhaustion claimant 1024, 3. Of course, suing entitled directly him; rather,

Category: 7