Opinion ID: 38070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ERISA action against it, we must focus on

Text: We review action on a Federal Rule of Civil whether it acted as a fiduciary with respect to Procedure 12(b)(6) motion de novo. See, e.g., the specific acts or omissions alleged to have Blansett v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 379 F.3d 177, breached its fiduciary duties.4 179 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 672 (2004). We accept all well-pleaded facts as The complaint fails to identify any specific true, viewing them in the light most favorable discretion or decisionmaking authority that to the plaintiffs. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 Towers Perrin had with respect to the alleged F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999). “At the same breaches of fiduciary duty. Taking all alleged time, the plaintiffs must plead specific facts, facts as true, the extent of Towers Perrin’s innot mere conclusional allegations, to avoid volvement is that it provided plaintiffs with the dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Kane notices that contained the alleged misrepresenEnters. v. MacGregor (USA), Inc., 322 F.3d tations.5 There is no allegation that Towers 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2003). “We will thus not Perrin exercised discretion or control regardaccept as true conclusory allegations or un- ing the content of the notices, the transfer of warranted deductions of fact.” Id. (quoting funds from the BEX Plan to the $uper $aver Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 Plan, the length of the blackout periods, or the F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000)). investment of the accounts. The transmission