David v. Alphin
817 F. Supp. 2d 764
W.D.N.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Bank of America 401(k) Plan participants alleging ERISA fiduciary breaches by Bank of America, CBC, and individual CBC members related to bank-affiliated funds.
- The Plan included bank-affiliated and non-bank funds; Nations Funds and Bank stock remained core components; Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund added later; overall disclosures existed since 2000.
- Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and omissions in communications about fund selections, fees, and fiduciary duties, including several internal memos and external communications.
- Plaintiffs filed this action in August 2006 after years of plan changes, amendments, and discovery, and have sought to amend multiple times, culminating in the Third Amended Complaint.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds; the court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing and allowed limited discovery to address limitations issues.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment, holding most claims time-barred under 29 U.S.C. §1113 and dismissing others for lack of standing and relation back concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1113(1)(A) bar Counts I and III as to initial fund selections? | Plaintiffs argue ongoing conduct tolled the period. | Defendants assert six-year repose bars action for initial selections. | Counts I and III time-barred. |
| Does the fraud/concealment tolling apply to Count IV? | Fraud/concealment tolls limitations. | No concealment; statements were ordinary disclosures. | Count IV time-barred; no tolling. |
| Is Count II timely as a continuing-violation claim about removal of funds? | Continuing duty to revisit selections extends period. | No duty to revisit initial selection; Count II time-barred. | Count II time-barred. |
| Does Count V have Article III standing for ERISA claims concerning a bank-affiliated fund added within six years? | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge fund additions. | Plaintiffs lack personal injury and standing. | Count V dismissed for lack of Article III standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibble v. Edison International, 639 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (ERISA fiduciaries need not revisit initial fund selections; front-loaded prohibitions unless ongoing fraud)
- Miele v. Pension Plan of N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund, 72 F. Supp. 2d 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (continuing violation doctrine limits when actions arise from a single event)
- Browning v. Tiger's Eye Benefits Consulting, 313 F. App'x 656 (4th Cir. 2009) (intent required for fraud/concealment tolling under §1113(2))
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires actual or imminent injury)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (standing requirements for judicial relief)
- United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973) (Article III standing and redressability principles)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (concrete adverseness requirement for justiciability)