Court Opinion

ID: 9962249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 14:01:04.688465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:10.679821
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23-7059                                                  September Term, 2023
                                                             FILED ON: APRIL 23, 2024

DARRELL WILCOX AND MICHAEL MCGUIRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS
OF PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES IN AND ON BEHALF OF THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN, THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN,
                    APPELLANTS

v.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,
                 APPELLEES

                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                                  for the District of Columbia
                                      (No. 1:18-cv-00422)

       Before: CHILDS and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge

                                        JUDGMENT

    This appeal was presented to the court and briefed and argued by counsel. The Court has
accorded the issues full consideration and determined that they do not warrant a published opinion,
see Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C. Cir. R. 36(d), and it is now

     ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed on March 31, 2023, be
affirmed. The district court correctly denied appellants’ motion for leave to amend their
complaint. 2023 WL 2734224. First, we agree with the district court that appellants lack standing
to bring two of their claims (challenging the inclusion of certain share classes of Vanguard mutual
funds in Georgetown University’s two retirement plans and the withdrawal restrictions on the
Teachers Insurance Annuity Association Traditional Annuity in one of the plans) because they do
not allege injury-in-fact. Second, with regard to appellants’ remaining claims (record keeping,
imprudent management and duty of candor), the district court correctly held that the original
complaint failed to adequately plead any claims, and that the proposed amended complaint would
be futile because it did not cure any of the earlier-identified deficiencies. See generally, Hughes
v. Northwestern Univ., 142. S. Ct. 737, 742 (instructing courts to apply the plausible pleading
standards discussed in Iqbal and Twombly in evaluating ERISA claims).
     Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed
to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition
for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

                                           Per Curiam

                                                             FOR THE COURT:
                                                             Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                     BY:     /s/
                                                             Daniel J. Reidy
                                                             Deputy Clerk

                                                 2