Court Opinion

ID: 9555442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-12 00:00:24.226778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:46.116363
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                 ____________                                FILED
                                                                       August 11, 2023
                                  No. 22-50368                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                Clerk

   Heriberto Chavez; Evangelina Escarcega, as the legal
   representative of her son Jose Escarcega; Jorge Moreno,

                                                            Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                       versus

   Plan Benefit Services, Inc.; Fringe Insurance Benefits,
   Incorporated; Fringe Benefit Group,

                                          Defendants—Appellants.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:17-CV-659
                  ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge:
          Heriberto Chavez, Evangelina Escarcega (representing her son, Jose
   Escarcega), and Jorge Moreno (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek to represent a
   class in a lawsuit against Plan Benefit Services, Fringe Insurance Benefits,
   and Fringe Benefit Group (collectively “FBG”) for the alleged
   mismanagement of funds that Plaintiffs contributed to benefit plans through
   their employers. Because Plaintiffs have standing to sue and the district court
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   did not abuse its discretion in the Rule 23 certification analysis, we
   AFFIRM.
                                I.     Background
         A.      FBG’s Alleged Mismanagement of the CERT & CPT Trusts
          FBG helps employers design and administer employee benefit
   programs that offer retirement and health and welfare benefits to their
   employees. In accordance with FBG’s plan, employers disburse benefits to
   their employees through two trusts: (1) the Contractors and Employee
   Retirement Trust (“CERT”), which covers retirement plans; and (2) the
   Contractors Plan Trust (“CPT”), which covers health and welfare benefits.
   Each employer signs either a separate retainer agreement or an adoption
   agreement as part of their enrollment in a plan. FBG serves as “Master Plan
   Sponsor” and “Recordkeeper” for both CERT and CPT.
          The contracts that FBG enters with employers also include a “Master
   Trust Agreement” granting FBG greater control over the CERT and CPT
   trusts. For example, the Master Trust Agreement allows FBG to determine
   the fees deducted from CERT and allows it to direct “banks and other
   entities holding Trust funds to pay those fees, including to FBG itself.” As
   to CPT specifically, the Master Trust Agreement authorizes FBG to
   “calculate and deduct its own fees from employer contributions before
   remitting premium payments to the carriers.”
          FBG markets CERT and CPT to non-union employers seeking to
   compete for government contracts. To qualify for the contracts, employers
   must pay their employees prevailing wages—that is, the wages and benefits
   paid to the majority of similarly situated laborers in the area at the time. In
   assisting employers with offering benefits under the prevailing wage laws,
   FBG offers plans with a combination of administrative and variable fees.

                                          2
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

          For example, each employer pays an identical, fixed administrative fee
   of $200, nondiscriminatory testing fee of $400, and indirect percentage-
   based fees totaling 1.15% of the company’s assets in the trust. Variable fees
   are assessed based on the company’s selections with FBG and the company’s
   total size and structure. So, a company that offers its employees a 401(k) may
   be assessed different fees than another company that offers a money-
   purchase plan. “These structures are called Tiered 1-4, Graded 25, and
   Graded 50.” While employers can choose a “‘tiered’ or ‘graded’ plan,
   [FBG] determines where the employer falls within [each] categorization
   scheme[.]”
          Plaintiffs were employees of the Training, Rehabilitation &
   Development Institute, Inc. (“TRDI”). TRDI contracted with FBG for
   various services. It was required to provide wage and fringe benefits to its
   employees in an amount calculated by the applicable prevailing wage
   determination. It provided retirement plans under CERT and health and
   welfare plans under CPT. The agreement governing CERT, CPT, and TRDI
   allotted various “powers and responsibilities” to FBG. For example, FBG
   had the power to: (1) enter contracts imposing fees and other charges on the
   trusts and the plans; (2) instruct any insurance company with respect to
   investment or disbursement of investment funds on behalf of the Trustee; (3)
   require the Trustee to make disbursements for FBG’s own fees in any
   amount that it directed; and (4) appoint and remove the Trustee.
          Chavez participated in CPT, meaning that TRDI paid monthly
   contributions to CPT on his behalf, from which FBG deducted fees. TRDI
   contributed a certain amount of money to a fringe benefit account in
   Chavez’s name for every hour that he worked, in accordance with federal and
   state laws. This fringe benefit account was used to help pay Chavez’s
   premiums incurred through his enrollment in health and welfare plans
   provided by TRDI. TRDI also paid a premium of $570.58 a month into CPT

                                         3
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990          Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

   for these benefits to cover his insurance. At least ten percent of the premium
   amount was paid to FBG. These fees were taken from Chavez’s individual
   health and welfare account. He contends that the “account was depleted
   more than it otherwise would have been if the fees had been reasonable.” He
   also avers that the unreasonable fees are wholly responsible for “no amount
   ever [being] contributed [to his] retirement account.”
          Escarcega and Moreno participated in both CERT and CPT. Like
   Chavez, TRDI made contributions to the fringe benefit accounts based on
   the number of hours that Escarcega and Moreno worked. Under each plan,
   FBG’s fees for plan administration services were subtracted from their
   individual accounts. They allege that FBG “deducted fees totaling more than
   10% of these payments for their own compensation before remitting the
   remainder to” their medical insurance providers. Escarcega was also enrolled
   in a “limited medical plan” with Standard Security Life (“SSL”) through
   CPT. He claims that “FBG deducted compensation for itself . . . for ancillary
   insurance premiums and fees of more than 17% of these payments, remitting
   the remaining amount as premiums to SSL.”
                             B.      Procedural History
          In July 2017, Plaintiffs sued FBG for mismanaging their employee
   benefit plans by collecting excessive fees in violation of the Employee
   Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
   Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that FBG charged different rates for identical
   services and charged an excessive base fee. FBG moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’
   claims. The district court granted FBG’s motion but gave Plaintiffs the
   opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleged
   that FBG “accepted excessive fees, handpicked providers to maximize its
   profits, controlled disbursements from the trusts for its own benefit, and
   unlawfully procured indirect compensation.” Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs.,

                                          4
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990            Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50368

   957 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2020). FBG moved to dismiss again for failure to
   state a claim under 21 U.S.C. §§ 1106(b) and § 1109(a) and lack of standing,
   which the district court denied.
          Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. They
   sought to represent a class of “all participants in and beneficiaries of
   employee benefit plans that provide benefits through CERT and CPT, . . .
   from six years before the filing of this action [July 6, 2011] until the time of
   trial.” The district court encountered a question of first impression: whether
   Plaintiffs had standing to sue FBG on behalf of unnamed class members from
   different contribution plans. It requested additional briefing on the issue and
   ultimately ruled that Plaintiffs had constitutional and statutory standing to
   sue FBG in a class-action context. On constitutional standing, the district
   court explained that Plaintiffs had demonstrated injury in fact, traceability,
   and redressability. Notably, it held that the class context was appropriate
   because “both the named and unnamed plaintiffs . . . are participants ‘of
   plans that provide employee benefits through CPT or CERT.’” It concluded
   that commonality was sufficient to allow class certification at this stage.
          As for statutory standing, the district court relied on a Sixth Circuit
   case, Fallick v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, to hold that Plaintiffs’
   only burden at this stage was assuring the court of their own standing to sue
   FBG. 162 F.3d 410, 424 (6th Cir. 1998). Specifically, it cited Fallick for the
   proposition that “the standing-related provisions of ERISA were not
   intended to limit a claimant’s right to proceed under Rule 23 on behalf of all
   individuals affected by the [fiduciary’s] challenged conduct, regardless of the
   representative’s lack of participation in all the ERISA governed plans
   involved.” Id. at 410; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. It reasoned that a deeper inquiry
   into the appropriateness of Plaintiffs as class representatives was reserved for
   the Rule 23 analysis, not constitutional or statutory standing. It held in
   Plaintiffs’ favor and certified a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class of 90,000 employees.

                                           5
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990          Page: 6    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

   Chavez v. Plan Benefit Servs., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-659-SS, 2018 WL 3016925, at
   *7–8 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2018).
          FBG appealed, and a panel of this court vacated and remanded,
   holding that the district court failed to engage in the “rigorous analysis”
   necessary for certifying a class action under Rule 23. See Chavez, 957 F.3d at
   544. On remand, Plaintiffs amended their motion for class certification, and
   the case was reassigned. The parties then presented oral argument and
   submitted supplemental briefing on standing.
          Upon consideration, the district court certified the following two
   classes:
              (1) All participants and beneficiaries of plans that
              provide employee benefits through CPT—other than
              [FBG’s] officers, directors, or relatives— from July 6,
              2011, until trial; and
              (2) All participants and beneficiaries of plans that
              provide employee benefits through CERT—other
              than (a) participants and beneficiaries of custom plans,
              and (b) [FBG’s] officers, directors, or relatives—from
              August 31, 2014, until trial.
   As of February 2021, the class included “224,995 participants and 2,994
   plans in CERT as well as 68,066 participants and 350 plans in CPT.”
          FBG then filed the instant appeal, urging this court to determine that
   Plaintiffs lack standing to represent the class and reverse the district court’s
   decision that Rules 23(b)(1)(B) and (b)(3) are proper vehicles for class
   certification. According to FBG, certification was improper, and we should
   remand for proceedings on only Plaintiffs’ claims.

                                          6
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990               Page: 7   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                         No. 22-50368

                            II.     Standard of Review
          “Standing is a question of law that we review de novo.” N. Cypress
   Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna Healthcare, 781 F.3d 182, 191 (5th Cir.
   2015) (citation and emphasis omitted). We review “all facts expressly or
   impliedly found by the district court” for clear error. Rivera v. Wyeth–Ayerst
   Labs., 283 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2002).
          We review class certification decisions for abuse of discretion. See
   Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation
   omitted). “Implicit in this deferential standard is a recognition of the
   essentially factual basis of the certification inquiry and of the district court’s
   inherent power to manage and control pending litigation.” Id. (citation
   omitted). “We review de novo, however, whether the district court applied
   the correct legal standards in determining whether to certify the class.”
   Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., 946 F.3d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis,
   quotations, and citations omitted).
                                  III.      Discussion
          Preliminarily, we address FBG’s characterization of Plaintiffs’ theory
   on appeal. FBG asserts that Plaintiffs have insisted that their lawsuit is only,
   or at least primarily, about excessive fees that they and the unnamed class
   members were subjected to by FBG. But that depiction of Plaintiffs’ theory
   fails to capture the entire breadth of their argument.
          Plaintiffs have always sought to make this case about FBG’s general
   practices in upholding their duties as fiduciaries of the CERT and CPT
   trusts. Indeed, their complaint focuses on the “Master Trust Agreement”
   and “Adoption Agreement” as the mechanisms through which FBG was able
   to charge the excessive fees to the various employees that participated in their
   plans. Furthermore, they have always sought to bring this action on behalf of
   members of the trust, not just employees who were allegedly charged

                                              7
Case: 22-50368       Document: 00516854990           Page: 8   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50368

   excessive fees. As Plaintiffs explain, the harm not only derives from FBG’s
   charging of excessive fees but also from the financial harm that FBG allegedly
   caused to the CERT and CPT trusts.
            We disagree with FBG that this case is only about the payment of
   excessive fees. The more apt characterization is detailed in Plaintiffs’
   complaint, which explains that this case is also about FBG’s alleged
   mismanagement of the trusts that they compel each employee to pay into
   through contracts with their employers. Likewise, the class that the district
   court eventually certified further reflects this understanding of Plaintiffs’
   theory. With that said, we press on to FBG’s standing argument.
            A.     Standing
            FBG asserts that the district court erroneously determined that
   Plaintiffs had standing to challenge fees that they were never subjected to, in
   plans that they never participated in, relating to services that they never
   received, from employers for whom they never worked. It avers that the
   district court skipped these justiciability concerns by following incorrect and
   nonbinding out-of-circuit precedent, which resulted in an inappropriate
   focus on class certifiability despite clear standing issues. More specifically,
   FBG contends that class action lawsuits cannot be used to aggregate claims
   of participants in plans in which they have no stake.
            In response, Plaintiffs insist that the district court simply recognized
   that FBG’s concerns were best addressed during the Rule 23 analysis and
   correctly relied on the Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Fallick to conclude that
   Plaintiffs have standing. 162 F.3d at 424. We agree with Plaintiffs on this
   issue.
            Federal courts have a continuing obligation to address jurisdictional
   defects. See Lewis v. Hunt, 492 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2007). Constitutional
   standing is one such consideration. The doctrine requires a plaintiff to

                                           8
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990          Page: 9      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

   demonstrate “(1) that he or she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete,
   particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) that the injury was caused by the
   defendant, and (3) that the injury would likely be redressed by the requested
   judicial relief.” Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A, 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1618 (2020) (citing
   Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992)).
          The concreteness and particularity of Plaintiffs’ injuries are especially
   relevant in this case. The Supreme Court has explained that a concrete injury
   is one that is “real, and not abstract.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330,
   340 (2016) (quotations omitted) (explaining that for an injury to be concrete,
   it “must actually exist”). And for an injury to be particularized, it must
   “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Id. at 339 (quotations
   and citation omitted).
          “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
   establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. Plaintiffs carry this
   burden throughout the litigation proceedings. See id. (“Since [standing is not
   a] mere pleading requirement[] but rather an indispensable part of the
   plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other
   matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner
   and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.”).
          The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that “Article III does
   not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff,
   class action or not.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2208
   (2021) (citing Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 466 (2016)
   (Roberts, C.J., concurring)). The Court has also cautioned us against
   dispensing standing “in gross” in a class-action context—instead instructing
   us to ensure that plaintiffs “demonstrate standing for each claim that they
   press and for each form of relief that they seek[.]” Id. (citation omitted).

                                          9
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 10    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

          FBG raises important questions about the order and depth in which
   this court grapples with constitutional standing and the Rule 23 inquiry.
   There is a split on this very question that exists across the circuits.
   See Standing to litigate what? The relationship between the class representatives’
   claims and those of absent class members, 1 William B. Rubenstein,
   Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions § 2:6 (6th ed.)
   (identifying a circuit split on whether a “class representative may seek to
   litigate harms not precisely analogous to the ones she suffered but harms that
   were nonetheless suffered by other class members”) [hereinafter, “Newberg
   on Class Actions”]. The split stems from the notion that “[t]here cannot be a
   disjuncture between the harm that the plaintiff suffered and the relief that
   she seeks.” Id. While relatively tame in individual cases, the disjuncture issue
   becomes increasingly complex as courts begin to aggregate claims for class
   consideration. Id.
          Newberg on Class Actions explains that appellate courts have resolved
   the disjuncture issue using two methods: (1) Some courts, “having
   determined that the class representative has standing to pursue her own
   claims, move on from the standing inquiry and approach the disjuncture as
   an issue of class certification”; or (2) Other courts “simply find that the class
   representative lacks standing to pursue the class members’ claims because
   she did not suffer their injuries[.]” Id. For the purposes of our analysis herein,
   the first approach will be referred to as the class certification approach, while
   the latter is the standing approach.
          While the Supreme Court has yet to declare which approach is
   correct, its standing jurisprudence provides guidance as we weigh the
   potential options. We examine each respective approach and conclude that,
   in this case, we may proceed to Rule 23 under either theory.

                                          10
Case: 22-50368         Document: 00516854990         Page: 11    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50368

                  1.       The Class Certification Approach
          The Supreme Court first grappled with the disjuncture issue in Sosna
   v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975). There, a wife brought a class action suit
   challenging the constitutionality of an Iowa state law that required individuals
   seeking a divorce to have been a resident of the state for at least one year
   preceding the filing of the divorce petition. Id. In upholding the
   constitutionality of Iowa’s law, the Court stated that a “named plaintiff in a
   class action must show that the threat of injury . . . is ‘real and immediate,’
   not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at 403. It continued that the named
   plaintiff “must be a member of the class which he or she seeks to represent
   at the time the class action is certified by the district court.” Id.
          The Sosna court reasoned that its “conclusion [did] not automatically
   establish that appellant [was] entitled to litigate the interests of the class she
   [sought] to represent.” Id. But it explained that “the focus of examination”
   nonetheless shifted “from the elements of justiciability to the ability of the
   named representative to ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
   class.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). This conclusion evinces the
   Court’s understanding that the Article III standing analysis, as with any
   justiciability inquiry, must precede any questions of class certifiability under
   Rule 23.
          The Supreme Court later applied the same reasoning from Sosna in
   General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157–60
   (1982). There, the named plaintiff, a Mexican-American employee, was
   passed over for a promotion and brought a class-action suit against his
   employer for alleged discrimination in both the hiring and promoting of
   minority employees. Id. at 150. While the Court acknowledged that the
   named plaintiff established standing to represent a class comprised of other
   minorities passed over for promotions, it declined to allow him to represent

                                           11
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990               Page: 12        Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                           No. 22-50368

   persons that were never hired because of an allegedly discriminatory
   application process. Id. at 157–60. Notably, the Court came to its conclusion
   in the Rule 23(a) commonality analysis—not during the constitutional or
   statutory standing inquiries. Id.
           At the circuit-court level, the class certification approach was followed
   by the Sixth Circuit in Fallick and has gained traction in the First, Third, and
   Ninth Circuits.1 See 162 F.3d at 424; see also In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., 907
   F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2018) (“Nothing . . . suggests that the claims of the
   named plaintiffs must in all respects be identical to the claims of each class
   member. Requiring that . . . to establish standing would confuse the
   requirements of Article III and Rule 23.” (internal quotations and citations
   omitted)); Boley v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 36 F.4th 124, 133 (3d Cir.
   2022) (explaining that named plaintiffs established standing and that
   defendants’ “concerns regarding the representation of absent class members
   might implicate class certification or damages but are distinct from the
   requirements of Article III”); B.K. by next friend Tinsley v. Snyder, 922 F.3d
   957, 967 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2509 (2020) (“As we have
   previously explained, once the named plaintiff demonstrates her individual
   standing to bring a claim, the standing inquiry is concluded, and the court

           _____________________
           1
              We further note the class certification approach’s prominence in the district
   courts of most circuits, including our own. See, e.g., In re RadioShack Corp. ERISA
   Litigation, 547 F. Supp. 2d 606, 611 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (holding that the named plaintiff
   established individual standing and stating that whether he could represent the other
   ERISA class members “should be left for later determination under Rule 23”); see also
   Molock v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 114, 130 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d on other
   grounds, 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (rejecting defendants’ standing argument that
   “Plaintiffs cannot pursue claims on behalf of putative class members from states in which
   Plaintiffs do not reside or suffered no injury” because “such considerations are
   appropriately resolved at the class certification stage, which is designed precisely to address
   concerns about the relationship between the class representative and the class” (internal
   quotations and citations omitted)).

                                                 12
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990         Page: 13   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   proceeds to consider whether the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class
   certification have been met. Any issues regarding the relationship between
   the class representative and the passive class members—such as dissimilarity
   in injuries suffered—are relevant only to class certification, not to standing.”
   (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
                 2.       The Standing Approach
          Less than a decade after Sosna, the Supreme Court encountered the
   disjuncture issue again in Blum v. Yaretsky, a Medicaid case involving a
   Fourteenth Amendment challenge to certain nursing homes’ unilateral
   decisions to transfer patients to facilities with lesser or higher levels of care
   than the patients already had without any administrative hearings for their
   desires to be heard. 457 U.S. 991 (1982). The Court’s analysis primarily
   focused on standing, as it explained that:
              It is not enough that the conduct of which the plaintiff
              complains will injure someone. The complaining party
              must also show that he is within the class of persons
              who will be concretely affected. Nor does a plaintiff
              who has been subject to injurious conduct of one kind
              possess by virtue of that injury the necessary stake in
              litigating conduct of another kind, although similar, to
              which he has not been subject.
   Id. at 999 (emphasis in original) (citing Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S.
   163, 166–67 (1972)). In concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the
   Court explained that “the conditions under which such transfers [to higher
   levels of care] occur are sufficiently different from those [that] respondents
   do have standing to challenge that any judicial assessment of their procedural
   adequacy would be wholly gratuitous and advisory.” Id. at 1001. The Court’s
   attention in Blum clearly centered on the “kind” of injury and whether that
   injury placed the potential representative “within the class of persons who
   will be concretely affected.” Id. at 999.

                                          13
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990           Page: 14    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

          Fourteen years later, the Supreme Court grappled with the standing
   approach again in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). There, the Court
   considered a class action brought by a group of Arizona inmates alleging a
   denial of their right of access to the courts. Id. The named plaintiff claimed
   that he was denied access to the courts due to his illiteracy and further
   averred that the prison refused to provide him with any services to assist him.
   Id. at 356. While the Court agreed that the named plaintiff likely had standing
   to sue, it declined to extend standing to others who were denied access to the
   courts for reasons other than illiteracy. Id. at 358 (refusing to provide
   standing to enter the class to “non-English speakers,” “prisoners in
   lockdown,” and the “inmate population at large”).
          The Lewis court supported its cabining of the named plaintiff’s
   standing by explaining that the “actual-injury requirement would hardly
   serve [its] purpose . . . if once a plaintiff demonstrated harm from one
   particular inadequacy in government administration, the court were
   authorized to remedy all inadequacies in that administration.” Id. at 357
   (emphasis in original). It continued that “[t]he remedy must of course be
   limited to the inadequacy that reduced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has
   established . . . This is no less true with respect to class actions than with
   respect to other suits.” Id. Put simply, the Court refused to allow a plaintiff
   whose injury stemmed from his illiteracy represent those that had suffered
   the same injury for an entirely different, unrelated reason. Id.
          Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gratz v. Bollinger marked a
   further development in the standing approach. See 539 U.S. 244 (2003). That
   landmark case involved a class-action challenge to the University of
   Michigan’s (“UM”) race-based affirmative action policies in its admissions
   process. Id. at 252. The named plaintiff in that case sought admittance to UM
   by transferring from another university. Id. Given the Court’s decision in
   Lewis, one might think that any class that he represented would be limited to

                                         14
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990               Page: 15        Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                           No. 22-50368

   other transfer students that alleged to have been harmed by UM’s race-based
   admissions policies. 518 U.S. at 357. The Court, however, allowed him to not
   only sue on behalf of transfer students but also prospective freshmen that
   alleged the same kind of harm. Gratz, 539 U.S. at 244. In rejecting the
   respondent’s challenge to the plaintiff’s standing at the certification stage,
   the Court distinguished Gratz from Blum, holding that UM’s “use of race in
   undergraduate transfer admissions does not implicate a significantly different
   set of concerns than does its use of race in undergraduate freshman
   admissions.” Id. at 265 (emphasis added). 2
           Several tests have emerged from the Supreme Court’s decision in
   Lewis, offering varied levels of strictness to the standing inquiry in the class
   context. The broadest interpretation comes from the Ninth Circuit, which
   has “interpreted the . . . requirements of the Lewis decision loosely, requiring
   only broad similarity of injury between the named plaintiffs and passive class
   members.” Newberg on Class Actions § 2:6 (citing Armstrong v. Davis, 275
   F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When determining what constitutes the same
   type of relief or the same kind of injury, we must be careful not to employ too
   narrow or technical an approach. Rather, we must examine the questions
   realistically: we must reject the temptation to parse too finely, and consider
   instead the context of the inquiry.” (abrogated on other grounds)).
           Not every circuit, however, views Lewis and its progeny so liberally.
   The Second Circuit, for example, takes a stricter approach and has developed
   a two-part test for class standing. See, e.g., Barrows v. Becerra, 24 F.4th 116,

           _____________________
           2
             See Newberg on Class Actions § 2:6 (stating that the Court’s treatment of standing
   in Gratz “suggests that the disjuncture problem may be overcome by demonstrating a
   sufficient relationship between the named plaintiffs’ injury and the class’s such that no
   disjuncture exists and the former can litigate the claims of the latter” (citation and footnote
   omitted)).

                                                 15
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990             Page: 16   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                         No. 22-50368

   129 (2d Cir. 2022). Its test requires a named plaintiff to plausibly allege “(1)
   that he personally has suffered some actual injury as a result of the putatively
   illegal conduct of the defendant,” and “(2) that such conduct implicates the
   same set of concerns as the conduct alleged to have caused injury to other
   members of the putative class by the same defendants.” Id. (internal
   quotations, citation, and footnote omitted). It has explained that when this
   test “is satisfied, the named plaintiff’s litigation incentives are sufficiently
   aligned with those of the absent class members[, such] that the named
   plaintiff may properly assert claims on their behalf.” Ret. Bd. of the
   Policemen’s Annuity & Ben. Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,
   775 F.3d 154, 161 (2d Cir. 2014).
          Notably, the Eleventh Circuit takes an approach akin to the Second
   Circuit. See Fox v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC, 977 F.3d 1039, 1046 (11th Cir.
   2020) (“First, the class representative must satisfy the individual standing
   prerequisites of the case or controversy requirement. Second, the class
   representative must also be part of the class and possess the same interest
   and suffer the same injury as the class members.”) (internal quotation marks
   and citations omitted). In Fox, the Eleventh Circuit considered a putative
   class action against a restaurant owner under the Florida Deceptive and
   Unfair Trade Practice Act 3 for his alleged failure to provide adequate notice
   that there was an automatic gratuity or service charge added to each
   customer’s check. See id. at 1039.
          While the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded due to the
   plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it made clear that he
   had “class representative standing.” Id. at 1047. Specifically, the court
   explained that the district court “conflate[d] the requirements of individual

          _____________________
          3
              Fl. Stat. §§ 501.201 et seq. (2023).

                                               16
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 17   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   standing with those for a class representative.” Id. It continued that “class
   standing does not necessarily require that the class representative suffer
   injury at the same place and on the same day as the class members. Rather,
   [standing] requires that the named plaintiff and class members have the same
   interest and suffer the same injury.” Id. (internal citation and quotation
   omitted).
          B.     Angell
          Relevantly, a panel of this court recently grappled with the disjuncture
   issue. Angell v. Geico Advantage Ins. Co., 67 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2023). There,
   a group of plaintiffs (the “Angell Plaintiffs”) sought “to represent a class of
   insureds claiming that GEICO failed to fully compensate them for the total
   loss of their vehicles under their respective insurance policies.” Id. at 731.
   Geico challenged the Angell Plaintiffs’ standing, arguing that while each
   plaintiff had standing to “bring a claim on his or her own[,] . . . the nature of
   each [] injury” failed to “extend to the scope of the injury alleged under the
   class’s definition, making [them] unsuitable class representatives.” Id. at 733.
          In rejecting Geico’s argument, we recognized that “[t]here has yet to
   be a bright line drawn between the issues of standing and class certification.”
   Id. (citing Gratz, 539 U.S. at 236 n.15). Rather than attempting to draw that
   line, the panel analyzed the Angell Plaintiffs’ standing under both the “more
   intensive standing approach” and “the more forgiving class certification
   approach.” Id. at 734 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
          The Angell court held that the Angell Plaintiffs had standing to
   represent the class under the standing approach because their injuries and
   interests were “sufficiently aligned with those of the class.” Id. at 734–35
   (examining whether the Angell Plaintiffs possessed “sufficiently analogous”
   injuries as the class they sought to represent). The court likewise held in their
   favor under the class certification approach because Geico already had

                                          17
Case: 22-50368         Document: 00516854990         Page: 18   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50368

   conceded that the Angell Plaintiffs established standing, and that was all that
   this more forgiving approach required. Id. at 734. With both tests satisfied,
   the panel conducted the Rule 23 inquiry. Id. at 736–41.
          While the Angell court’s application of the two competing approaches
   has no dispositive effect on the ultimate result in this case, it still provides a
   useful analytical framework as we endeavor to grapple with an identical issue
   in the instant case. Just as the panel did in Angell, we decline to adopt either
   the class certification or standing approach because we have determined that
   Plaintiffs have standing under both theories. 67 F.4th at 734–36.
         C.      Neither Approach Bars Plaintiffs from Rule 23 Consideration
                  1.       The Class Certification Approach
          The class certification approach provides a direct route to the Rule 23
   inquiry. As a reminder, the approach requires Plaintiffs to first establish their
   standing to sue FBG for allegedly: (1) hiring itself to perform services to
   Plaintiffs’ insurance plans; (2) paying itself excessive compensation out of
   plan assets; and (3) arranging for excessive compensation to itself from other
   service providers to the plans. Assuming they can establish their standing to
   sue, we then proceed to the Rule 23 analysis to determine whether Plaintiffs
   can adequately and fairly represent the entire group’s interests. See Sosna,
   419 U.S. at 403; Falcon, 457 U.S. 157–60. Plaintiffs may proceed as class
   representatives only after successfully clearing both hurdles.
          Here, Plaintiffs have established their standing to sue FBG. First, they
   have demonstrated injury in fact by alleging that FBG abused its authority
   under the Master Trust Agreement by hiring itself to perform services paid
   with funds from the CERT and CPT trusts, effectively devaluing the trusts
   and retirement benefits that Plaintiffs otherwise would have accrued with
   their employer. Second, they have established that their injury is traceable to
   FBG’s conduct by providing evidence of FBG’s direct control over the

                                           18
Case: 22-50368           Document: 00516854990             Page: 19        Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                           No. 22-50368

   CERT and CPT trusts and the underlying contractual agreement with their
   employer. Finally, their injury is redressable in this court by awarding
   monetary damages or other relief. 4 Any further analysis on the
   appropriateness of appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives under
   this approach would occur during the Rule 23 inquiry. Consequently, we
   move on to an analysis under the standing approach.
                    2.       The Standing Approach
           The standing approach offers three different avenues for evaluating
   Plaintiffs’ Article III standing: (1) the Lewis test, requiring us to consider
   whether Plaintiffs’ harm is so unique that it warrants an isolated remedy that
   would be inappropriate if extended to other class members, see 518 U.S. at
   358; (2) the Gratz test, which requires us to evaluate if Plaintiffs’ injury
   implicates “a significantly different set of concerns” from the other potential
   class members, see 539 U.S. at 265; or (3) the Second or Eleventh Circuit tests
   for class representative standing, which are hybrid versions of the Lewis and
   Gratz tests. See supra. We address each in turn.
                             a.      Lewis
           Under Lewis, we analyze whether Plaintiffs alleged a harm that is
   unique to them, such that it would be unsuitable to permit other nonrelated
   harms in the same lawsuit. On this record, they have not alleged a narrow
   injury. Plaintiffs claim that FBG “impos[ed] sky-high administrative
   costs, . . . enrich[ing] [itself] at the expense of the Trusts’ participating
   employee benefit plans and the employees who receive their retirement and
   healthcare benefits through those plans.” FBG does not contend that the

           _____________________
           4
             To be clear, FBG does not argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to proceed outside
   of the class context. Rather, its suit seeks to reverse the district court’s class certification
   because it alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing to represent the other class members..

                                                 19
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 20   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   other class members seek or require a different remedy, nor does it assert that
   the injury is unique to Plaintiffs. Instead, it merely insists that because
   Plaintiffs had different plans and employers, they lack standing to challenge
   the same general practices that each member of the class was subjected to.
   This theory is unsupported by Lewis.
                        b.      Gratz
          The Gratz test is also in Plaintiffs’ favor. Simply put, Plaintiffs’ claim
   that FBG mismanaged the trust to their detriment “does not implicate a
   significantly different set of concerns than does” FBG’s mismanagement of
   the trust for the unnamed class members. 539 U.S. at 265. That there is an
   abundance of employers and plans does nothing to shift the calculus of that
   conclusion either. Ultimately, Plaintiffs have undeniably suffered the same
   kind of loss as the unnamed class members because of FBG’s alleged
   misconduct. Id. Put another way, the set of concerns here are identical
   between Plaintiffs and the unnamed class members: the return of trust funds
   that each plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to if FBG had not
   violated ERISA. Furthermore, at no stage in this litigation, has FBG argued
   that there are different concerns across the class.
                        c.      The Second & Eleventh Circuit Tests
          Under the Second Circuit’s test, we examine whether Plaintiffs have
   established “(1) that [they] personally [] suffered some actual injury as a
   result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,” and “(2) that such
   conduct implicates the same set of concerns as the conduct alleged to have
   caused injury to other members of the putative class by the same
   defendants.” Barrows, 24 F.4th at 129. The first prong is a traditional
   standing analysis, which we have already completed in Plaintiffs’ favor. See
   supra Part III.C.2.a. And the second prong is nothing more than the Gratz
   test, calling for us to consider whether FBG’s conduct “implicates the same

                                          20
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 21   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   set of concerns” as Plaintiffs’ injury. Barrows, 24 F.4th at 129. As we have
   already explained, Plaintiffs’ claim and FBG’s conduct wholly implicate the
   same concerns with respect to each member of the class that Plaintiffs seek
   to represent. See supra Part III.C.2.b.
          The Eleventh Circuit’s method yields the same result. That test
   requires us to consider whether Plaintiffs “and [the other] class members
   have the same interest and suffer[ed] the same injury.” Fox, 977 F.3d at 1047.
   Plaintiffs and the other class members undoubtedly have the same interest:
   the return of trust funds or any other vindication of their financial harm. The
   two also share the same injury: FBG’s mismanagement of trust funds and
   charging of excessive fees deprived them of some portion of the benefits that
   they were entitled to. Again, that these injuries were the result of different
   agreements with different employers does not alter that the harm occurred
   directly from FBG’s misconduct pertaining to the trusts that it required
   participation in through the incorporation of certain provisions in each
   contract.
          Despite FBG’s arguments to the contrary, there is no support for a
   conclusion that Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to pursue this claim on
   behalf of other similarly situated plaintiffs allegedly harmed by FBG’s
   mismanagement of the CERT and CPT trusts, charging of excessive fees
   placed into those trusts, and self-dealing in violation of ERISA.
          Having analyzed Plaintiffs’ standing under each possible methodology
   in the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit’s jurisprudence, we are satisfied that
   they have established their standing to sue FBG under Article III. Whether
   the district court appropriately determined that they are proper class

                                             21
Case: 22-50368           Document: 00516854990            Page: 22        Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                           No. 22-50368

   representatives now depends on whether Plaintiffs satisfy the Rule 23
   thresholds for such a status. 5
           D.       Rule 23 Analysis
           The district court conducted a thorough analysis of Rules 23(a),
   (b)(1), and (b)(3). It concluded that Plaintiffs satisfied all of Rule 23(a)’s
   adequacy-of-representation requirements and further demonstrated that this
   case can be certified under either Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(3). FBG asserts no
   challenge to the district court’s Rule 23(a) analysis. 6 Instead, it focuses on
   the district court’s Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(3) determinations. 7 It avers that the
   district court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to account for the wide
   variety of plans included in the class and (2) sanctioning hundreds of mini-
   trials because of the individualized nature of the class claims. We disagree.
                    1.       Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
           The district court first determined that Plaintiffs had met their burden
   to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). Rule 23(b)(1)(B) prevents the
   prejudicing of parties after the initial suit when subsequent suits involve the
   same subject matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B). Specifically, it stops

           _____________________
           5
             Statutory standing is a key requirement for Plaintiffs as well. The district court
   held that Plaintiffs had statutory standing. On appeal, FBG’s primary brief does not contest
   the district court’s determination on this issue, so it is not presently before this court. See
   United States v. Fernandez, 48 F.4th 406, 412 (5th Cir. 2022) (“[F]ailure adequately to brief
   an issue on appeal constitutes waiver of that argument.” (internal quotation and citation
   omitted)).
           6
              While FBG seemingly takes issue with the district court’s Rule 23(a)
   commonality analysis, its stated concerns are limited to its argument that the district court
   wholly relied on its commonality determinations to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
           7
            As a reminder, we review the district court’s class certification under a deferential
   abuse-of-discretion standard. See Allison, 151 F.3d at 408.

                                                 22
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990             Page: 23      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                       No. 22-50368

   one party from collecting damages at the expense of other parties and
   protects later parties from being bound by the judgment of a case in which
   their interests were not adequately represented. See id. (preventing separate
   actions where there is a “risk of . . . adjudications with respect to individual
   class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests
   of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would
   substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests”).
          FBG asserts that the “district court’s analysis completely fails to
   account for the central fact that this proposed class involves vastly different
   plans and fees.” It continues that the district court relied on inapposite
   caselaw that is too dissimilar from the present circumstances to provide a
   legal foundation for the certification of this class. It also contends that the
   district court incorrectly assumed that an accounting for Plaintiffs’ claim
   would be dispositive in any way for any other plan members. Its arguments
   are unpersuasive.
          We begin with FBG’s contention that the “record demonstrates the
   variety of fees and plans in play.” That proposition, as the district court
   recognized, is demonstrably untrue. The district court went to great lengths
   in analyzing the alleged uniqueness of each agreement with every employer
   involved with FBG and the CERT and CPT trusts. 8 For example, the district
   court observed that for CERT, FBG’s “fees are either uniform or amenable
   to a pricing grid . . . [in that] all plans are charged the same amount of indirect
   compensation regardless of employers’ choices.” Furthermore, “direct
   compensation” was also “uniform or amenable to a pricing grid.” Indeed,
   the boilerplate-like pricing methodology was even explored during

          _____________________
          8
             Although this discussion was conducted in the Rule 23(a) commonality section,
   its thoroughness is not diminished in later stages of class-certification analysis.

                                             23
Case: 22-50368      Document: 00516854990            Page: 24    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                      No. 22-50368

   depositions, where FBG’s Vice President, Jennifer Carol Pagano, testified
   that the fees FBG charged were unaffected by the different arrangements that
   the company made with employers.
          Ultimately, the district court, in its discretion, weighed the differences
   and similarities among the plans—a task only possible because of the limited
   fluctuations in the terms of contracts—and determined that they were
   sufficiently similar such that deciding Plaintiffs’ case as an individual action
   would have unwanted or impermissible effects on similarly situated
   employees that contributed to the CERT and CPT trusts through different
   employers. Moreover, it recognized that “prosecuting separate actions could
   substantially impair the putative class members’ ability to protect their
   interests because Plaintiffs are alleging two claims central to all class
   members.” Namely, whether FBG is or is not a fiduciary, and, if so, whether
   it breached their duties in that role.
          FBG also urges us to reverse the district court because its class-
   certification analysis considered the precedential effect that its ruling would
   have on unnamed class members. Specifically, FBG argues that “[i]t is
   settled that the possibility that an action will have either [precedential] or
   stare decisis effect on later cases is not sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(b)(1)(B).”
   In re Dennis Greenman Sec. Litig., 829 F.2d 1539, 1546 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing
   Larionoff v. United States, 533 F.2d 1167, 1181 n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1976), aff’d, 431
   U.S. 864 (1977)). But this rule is not a categorical bar to the district court’s
   consideration of precedential factors or preclusive effects under Rule
   23(b)(1)(B). Id. Rather, it prohibits a district court from certifying a Rule
   23(b)(1)(B) class solely because of stare decisis concerns. See, e.g., McBirney
   v. Autrey, 106 F.R.D. 240, 246 (N.D. Tex. 1985) (“Where, however, the stare
   decisis effect of individual actions presents the only potential prejudice to
   absent class members, Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is not satisfied.” (emphasis added));
   see also La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461, 467 (9th Cir. 1973).

                                            24
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 25    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

          Aside from considering potential stare decisis issues, the district court
   weighed numerous other factors in certifying the class under Rule
   23(b)(1)(B), such as: (1) whether prosecuting these actions separately would
   be “‘dispositive’ of the interests of other class members,” (2) the possibility
   of a due process violation against FBG, (3) the degree of prejudice FBG could
   potentially suffer through a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class certification, and (4)
   whether Plaintiffs’ requested monetary and equitable relief was possible
   through a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class. Because the district court considered more
   than just stare decisis concerns, it did not abuse its discretion.
          Furthermore, FBG ignores an important aspect of Plaintiffs’ relief in
   its attempt to make this case purely about damages and the varied amounts
   each class member may be owed. A key part of their requested relief sounds
   in equity, in that they seek a declaration that FBG must stop conduct causing
   future harm to the trusts and depriving the class of future benefits. This type
   of relief undoubtedly involves the entire class—or any other members of the
   CERT and CPT trusts—and plays an important role in the calculus of Rule
   23(b)(1)(B) certification.
          Finally, a large part of the monetary relief that Plaintiffs seek stems
   from their desire to disgorge FBG of ill-gotten profits, thus restoring assets
   to the CERT and CPT trusts. That is yet another factor favoring the district
   court’s decision to certify under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because a decision on the
   merits dispositively implicates the financial interests of potentially hundreds
   of thousands of contributors to the CERT and CPT trusts.
          Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion, we uphold its certification of Plaintiffs’ class-action claim under
   Rule 23(b)(1)(B). We realize, however, that the Supreme Court has
   cautioned against certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). See Ortiz v. Fibreboard
   Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 845–48 (1999) (overviewing the many concerns that

                                          25
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990         Page: 26   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   follow mandatory opt-ins associated with class certification under Rule
   23(b)(1)(B)). In recognition of the Court’s warning, we will also analyze the
   district court’s Rule 23(b)(3) determination.
                 2.       Rule 23(b)(3)
          The district court also held that Rule 23(b)(3) was another potential
   vehicle for certifying Plaintiffs’ class because of the common questions of law
   and fact as to whether FBG owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and the
   other class members by virtue of their role in managing the CERT and CPT
   trusts. It further explained that this question percolated throughout the
   entirety of the claim as it involved whether that duty was breached. We
   examine its analysis and hold that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion.
          Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) requires a Plaintiff to
   demonstrate that “questions of law or fact common to class members
   predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that
   a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
   adjudicating the controversy.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). From this
   rule, courts have reduced the analysis to two inquiries: predominance and
   superiority. Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 626–29 (5th
   Cir. 1999). FBG does not contest the district court’s determination on
   superiority, so our discussion focuses on predominance. “In order to
   ‘predominate,’ common issues must constitute a significant part of the
   individual cases.” See Mullen, 186 F.3d at 626.
          We have further clarified that the predominance analysis “entails
   identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing
   which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are
   common to the class, a process that ultimately prevents the class from
   degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,

                                          26
Case: 22-50368     Document: 00516854990            Page: 27    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50368

   339 F.3d 294, 302 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Moreover, “[t]he predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), though
   redolent of the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a), is ‘far more
   demanding’ because it ‘tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently
   cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.’” Gene & Gene LLC v.
   BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc.
   v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623–24 (1997)).
          FBG contends that the district court abused its discretion by certifying
   the class under Rule 23(b)(3) because individualized issues of fee
   excessiveness predominate this dispute. It avers that the wide variety of
   different fees and plans will turn this case into a series of mini-trials.
   Specifically, it insists that there will need to be mini-trials on whether each of
   the FBG subsidiaries are functional fiduciaries as to each of the 3,344 plans.
   In support of that contention, it relies on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Teets
   v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, 921 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir.
   2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 554 (2019). It contends that Teets demonstrates
   how intricate the functional-fiduciary analysis is, so the district court erred in
   holding that “fiduciary status could be determined on a class-wide basis by
   looking at a master trust agreement giving [FBG] ‘authority over their own
   compensation.’” We examine each argument in turn.
                         a.     FBG’s Role as Fiduciary
          First, we examine the district court’s conclusion that this case will not
   devolve into a series of mini-trials on FBG’s status as a fiduciary. The district
   court first examined that all the claims and defenses in the class involved
   “concepts of duty, breach, causation, and loss.” See In re Enron Corp. Secs.,
   Derivative & ERISA Litig., 284 F. Supp. 2d 511, 579 (S.D. Tex. 2003). It
   explained that whether FBG owed a duty to Plaintiffs was a common question
   across the class. Moreover, it observed that whether that duty was breached

                                          27
Case: 22-50368        Document: 00516854990               Page: 28       Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                          No. 22-50368

   was a similarly common question that was significant and likely dispositive
   over the entire class’s claims.
           In response, FBG maintains that those common questions fail to
   predominate the individualized inquiry into each plan that will necessarily
   follow. It cites Teets for the proposition that “Plaintiffs must establish that
   [FBG was the] functional fiduciar[y] as to each challenged action in relation
   to each plan.” The district court disagreed, and so do we. Besides the fact
   that it was not bound by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Teets, the district
   court went a different direction than that court because it aptly recognized
   that trying this case separately would inevitably lead to the redundant
   production of evidence that is common across the class. 9
           For example, each plaintiff would certainly produce that plaintiff’s
   own contract, which expressly makes FBG a fiduciary by incorporating the
   Master Trust Agreement. The predominant question from the production of
   the Master Trust Agreements is whether it operates as Plaintiffs assert. That
   question’s      commonality         unequivocally         dominates       any     potential
   individualized inquiries that could arise thereafter. 10 The district court did
   not abuse its discretion.

           _____________________
           9
             FBG’s other out-of-circuit authority is similarly unconvincing. For example, their
   reliance on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in McCaffree Financial Corporation v. Principal Life
   Insurance Company, 811 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2016) is unpersuasive and distinguishable from
   the instant case because it involved a bargained-for fee arrangement made by an employer
   without any attack of the actual management of the trust that held the excessive fees.
           10
             FBG’s argument here appears to be that it is entitled to hundreds of thousands
   of opportunities to prove that it is not a fiduciary to the CERT and CPT trusts. But it cites
   no law persuading us that the district court abused its discretion in refusing it that
   opportunity.

                                                28
Case: 22-50368       Document: 00516854990         Page: 29    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-50368

                         b.     FBG’s Due Process Rights
          FBG also argues that the district court’s decision to consider
   Plaintiffs’ statistical evidence interferes with its constitutional right to due
   process by robbing it of its right “to defend against the alleged excessiveness
   of every fee paid by every plan in every geographic area on an individualized
   basis.” But the nonbinding authority it cites for this right contradicts its
   assertions. See Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 670–71 (7th Cir.
   2015) (rejecting a violation of a defendant’s due process rights where there is
   “a common method for showing individual damages,” such as “a simple
   formula [that] could be applied to each class member’s employment
   records” because “that would be sufficient for the predominance and
   superiority requirements to be met”) (quoting Newberg on Class
   Actions § 12:2)).
          The Seventh Circuit’s understanding of due process in Mullins aligns
   with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on damage calculations through
   formulae and statistical modeling in the class context. See Comcast Corp. v.
   Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35–37 (2013) (permitting consideration of a model to
   determine a liability if it “measure[s] only those damages attributable to [the
   class’s] theory”); see also Tyson Foods, 577 U.S. at 454–55. In short, the
   district court did not violate this precedent by acknowledging Plaintiffs’ plan
   to establish FBG’s liability using an arithmetic, formulaic method. So, FBG’s
   due process rights are sufficiently protected, and the “[d]ifferences in the
   amount of damages . . . among class members are no bar to class
   certification.”
          Because Plaintiffs have standing and certification is appropriate under
   Rule 23(b)(1)(B) or (b)(3), the district correctly determined that this
   litigation may proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

                                         29
Case: 22-50368   Document: 00516854990           Page: 30   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                  No. 22-50368

                            IV.      Conclusion
         For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                      30