Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1712_0971.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

THOLE v. U. S. BANK N. A. 

Opinion of the Court 

440 (1999).

As  retirees  and  vested  participants  in  U. S.  Bank’s  de-
fined-benefit plan, Thole receives $2,198.38 per month, and 
Smith receives $42.26 per month, regardless of the plan’s 
value at any one moment and regardless of the investment 
decisions  of  the  plan’s  fiduciaries.    Thole  and Smith  have 
been paid all of their monthly pension benefits so far, and 
they are legally and contractually entitled to receive those 
same monthly payments for the rest of their lives.   

Even though the plaintiffs have not sustained any mone-
tary  injury,  they  filed  a  putative  class-action  suit  against
U. S. Bank and others (collectively, U. S. Bank) for alleged 
mismanagement  of  the  defined-benefit  plan.  The  alleged
mismanagement  occurred  more  than  a  decade  ago,  from
2007 to 2010.  The plaintiffs sued under ERISA, the aptly
named Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 
88  Stat.  829,  as  amended,  29  U. S. C.  §1001  et seq.  The 
plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated ERISA’s du-
ties of loyalty and prudence by poorly investing the assets
of the plan.  The plaintiffs requested that U. S. Bank repay 
the plan approximately $750 million in losses that the plan
allegedly suffered.  The plaintiffs also asked for injunctive
relief, including replacement of the plan’s fiduciaries.  See 
ERISA §§502(a)(2), (3), 29 U. S. C. §§1132(a)(2), (3).  

No small thing, the plaintiffs also sought attorney’s fees.
In the District Court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys requested at 
least $31 million in attorney’s fees.    

The U. S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dis-
missed  the  case,  and  the  U. S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the
Eighth  Circuit  affirmed  on  the  ground  that  the  plaintiffs 
lack statutory standing.  873 F. 3d 617 (2017).  We granted
certiorari.  588 U. S. ___ (2019).

We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for 
the Eighth Circuit on the ground that the plaintiffs lack Ar-
ticle  III  standing.    Thole  and  Smith  have  received  all  of 
their monthly benefit payments so far, and the outcome of