Turning to the Rule 23(a) requirements, the court rejected the defendants’ argumentsthat the plaintiffs’ claims otherwise lacked typicality “because putative class membersmade different investment decisions, which resulted in different management andadministrative fees.” Id. at *34. Explaining that typicality does not require representativeand class claims to involve the same facts, law, or a uniform damages analysis, thecourt found the typicality requirement satisfied because the plaintiffs’ claims arose “fromthe same alleged misconduct by the defendants towards the putative class membersand are based upon the same legal theories concerning alleged breaches of fiduciaryduties.” Id. at *34-36. Similarly, that the plaintiffs and absent class members wereinvested in the Plan during different periods and may have experienced different gainsand losses was insufficient to create conflicts rendering the plaintiffs inadequate classrepresentatives under Rule 23(a) because such differences would “be resolved at thedamages stage rather than class certification” and the claims otherwise challenged thesame conduct as producing common, class-wide injuries.The court found that the other requirements of Rule 23(a) were met and found classcertification appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B) to avoid the risk ofsubjecting the defendants to incompatible standards of conduct and ensure protectionof absent class members interests. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’motion and certified the class as modified to exclude absent class members whoinvested exclusively in unchallenged funds.By comparison, in Huang, et al. v. Trinet HR III Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192525(M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2022), the court granted class certification, but narrowed theproposed class. The plaintiffs, participants in one of two professional employerorganization (PEO) sponsored 401(k) plans, TriNet III and TriNet IV, brought a putativeclass action against the defendants (the PEOs and their Boards of Directors) allegingthey breached their fiduciary duties by maintaining overpriced or underperforminginvestment options in the plans and by failing to monitor or control the plans’recordkeeping expenses. The plaintiffs originally sought to certify a class of all personswho had participated in either of the plans during the class period. Opposing the motion,the defendants first challenged the named plaintiffs’ standing with respect to the TriNetIII plan because only one had invested in it but not in any of the funds challenged in thecomplaint. With respect to the excessive fees claim, the same plaintiff had actually paidlower annual fees than the plaintiffs’ expert asserted were reasonable. As such, thecourt agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing on any claim and dismissed her from theaction. Id. At *9-11. Nevertheless, the court held that the remaining named plaintiffs hadstanding to pursue claims with respect to both plans despite being participants only inthe TriNet IV plan. The court explained that, because the remaining plaintiffs hadinvested in challenged funds in the TriNet IV plan and paid allegedly excessive fees,they had demonstrated an injury-in-fact. Because they alleged that were injured by the“defendants’ general practices affecting all plans” in the same manner as all otherparticipants in both plans, they had standing to pursue claims on behalf of both plans.Id. at *12-14.Turning to certification and the requirements of Rule 23(a), the defendants focused onchallenging typicality. Specifically, the defendants argued that the claims involving201© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
11
42
55
67
86
98
114
129
144
173
189
209
219
238
244
258
282
293
303
314
330
354
371
381
386
391
422
