Opinion ID: 172426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Dismissal of Kerber and Phelps from Count Two for Lack of Standing

Text: In their second issue on appeal, plaintiffs contend the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs Kerber and Phelps from Count Two of the second amended complaint on the basis that `each retired in 1990, and the Complaint does not allege that they have suffered any concrete, particularized, and actual injury from the implementation of Amendment 2003-5.' Id. at 39 (quoting App. at 396-97). According to plaintiffs, Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), provides a cause of action to any participant or beneficiary to seek equitable relief. Aplt. Br. at 40. Because ... Kerber and Phelps sought injunctive relief to redress violations of the Plan's terms and violations of the statute, plaintiffs argue, they have both Article III constitutional and ERISA Section 502(a)(3) statutory standing to pursue Count [Two]. Id. Lastly, plaintiffs argue that Kerber and Phelps need not demonstrate actual harm in order to have standing to seek injunctive relief requiring a defendant to satisfy statutorily-created responsibilities. Id. We summarily reject plaintiffs' arguments and conclude, for the reasons aptly stated by the district court, that Kerber and Phelps lacked standing to seek relief under Count Two of the second amended complaint.