Opinion ID: 777035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of the Claims Against PAC Members.

Text: 29 In the second case, plaintiffs sued seven members of 3M's Pension Assets Committee asserting the same breaches of fiduciary duty. This action was stayed by stipulation until the district court ruled on the issue of whether the Plan had an adequate surplus. The district court then granted summary judgment in this action, concluding that collateral estoppel bars plaintiffs' failure to investigate and monitor and prohibited transaction claims against the PAC defendants. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that collateral estoppel does not bar the failure to investigate and monitor claims because the district court's decision in favor of 3M was based upon a special defense available only to fiduciary-employers. Collateral estoppel bars these claims only if the PAC defendants are entitled to summary judgment on an issue that was actually and necessarily determined in plaintiffs' action against 3M. United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1198 (8th Cir.1994). 30 Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in concluding that the PAC defendants' liability is identical to that of the employer [3M] for the purpose of establishing the required element of a loss to the Plan. But we have not affirmed the district court's ruling that the Plan's surplus meant there were no losses to the plan. Rather, we conclude that the Plan's surplus deprived plaintiffs of standing to sue because they suffered no injury in fact. This conclusion applies as well to defeat plaintiffs' claims against the PAC defendants. Thus, the Plan surplus issue, which was actually and necessarily litigated in the 3M case, bars plaintiffs' claims in this second case by reason of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 31 In this second appeal, plaintiffs again challenge the merits of the district court's decision dismissing their claims against 3M. We reject these contentions for the reasons stated in Parts II and III of this opinion. 32 The judgments of the district court are affirmed.