Daniel Matousek v. MidAmerican Energy Company, 51f4th274

MidAmerican maintained a defined-contribution retirement plan with roughly 5,000 participants and about $1 billion in assets; Merrill Lynch served as recordkeeper and received $1.9M–$3.1M annually (≈$326–$526 per participant).
Participant disclosures listed basic recordkeeping/admin services costing $32–$48 per participant; the larger totals reported on Form 5500s included revenue sharing and participant-specific fees (trading, brokerage, loan and check fees, investment-management-related payments).
Plaintiffs (Matousek et al.) alleged fiduciary breaches under ERISA for: (1) imprudently high recordkeeping/administrative fees and (2) failing to monitor and remove imprudent investment options (they identified five funds).
Plaintiffs relied on industry averages (NEPC, 401(k) Averages Book), peer-group performance/expense comparisons, and two specific alternative funds as benchmarks for imprudence.
The district court dismissed for failure to plead meaningful benchmarks for assessing fund performance; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs did not plead sound, like-for-like comparisons and did not request leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recordkeeping fees excessive	Fees paid to Merrill Lynch were unreasonably high vs industry averages (≤ $100 pp)	Merrill Lynch’s reported total compensation includes more than basic recordkeeping (revenue sharing and participant-initiated services); industry averages only measure basic services	Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to provide a like-for-like benchmark tying the total compensation to comparable plans/services
Duty to monitor/remove imprudent funds	Committee kept underperforming or high‑cost funds and should have removed five specific funds	Fund performance and fees do not, by themselves, establish process failure absent meaningful benchmarks	Dismissed: plaintiffs didn’t plead sound, fund-specific benchmarks that render imprudence plausible
Benchmark sufficiency / pleading standard	Industry averages and peer-group aggregates suffice to infer imprudence	Aggregates lack the required detail (service mix, fund objectives, risk profile, plan size) to be a meaningful benchmark	Aggregates and unidentified peer groups are inadequate under pleading standard; complaint fails plausibility test
Dismissal with prejudice / leave to amend	Plaintiffs argued dismissal should not be with prejudice	Defendant: plaintiffs never moved for leave to amend or filed a proposed amended complaint	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion because plaintiffs never sought leave or complied with local rules to amend

Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020) (distinguishes defined‑benefit and defined‑contribution plan characteristics)
Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 142 S. Ct. 737 (2022) (affirmed fiduciary duty to monitor plan investments)
Davis v. Washington Univ. in St. Louis, 960 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2020) (explains need for meaningful, like‑for‑like benchmarks to plausibly plead excessive‑fee claims)
Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co., 898 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2018) (requires a sound basis for comparison when alleging imprudence)
Braden v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (process-focused standard; meaningful comparisons can include market indices and same‑fund shares)
Albert v. Oshkosh Corp., 47 F.4th 570 (7th Cir. 2022) (benchmarks should compare to similar plans providing the same services)
Sweda v. Univ. of Pa., 923 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 2019) (plausible claim where plan spent materially more than similar plans for same services)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not merely conceivable)
Far E. Aluminium Works Co. v. Viracon, Inc., 27 F.4th 1361 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard for abuse of discretion review on denial of leave to amend)
Smith v. CommonSpirit Health, 37 F.4th 1160 (6th Cir. 2022) (rejects comparison to industry averages when services covered differ)