Davis v. Magna International of America, Inc., 2:20-cv-11060

Plaintiffs (Melvin Davis and Dakota King) sued Magna and plan fiduciaries under ERISA §§ 409 and 502 on behalf of participants in the Magna Group of Companies Retirement Savings Plan, alleging imprudent/loyalty breaches for retaining high‑cost or inferior investment options and failing to investigate lower‑cost share classes and recordkeeping costs.
The Plan is a defined‑contribution 401(k) with >$1 billion (≈$1.6B in 2018) in assets; proposed class period April 30, 2014 through judgment.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1); defendants did not contest numerosity or commonality.
Defendants challenged adequacy and typicality of the two remaining named plaintiffs, citing prior criminal convictions, alleged credibility problems, and limited knowledge of the claims.
The court found numerosity and commonality satisfied but held the named plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives because their prior convictions and demonstrated lack of familiarity with the claims undermined their ability to fairly and adequately protect class interests.
Motion for class certification denied without prejudice; plaintiffs given 30 days to substitute new class representatives / class counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Numerosity & Commonality (Rule 23(a)(1),(2))	Class of Plan participants (>20,000) raises common questions about fiduciary breaches and imprudent high fees	Not disputed
Adequacy of class representatives (Rule 23(a)(4))	Davis and King are willing representatives with aligned interests; counsel experienced	Prior fraud/credibility issues and plaintiffs' limited understanding undermine ability to represent class	Named plaintiffs not adequate; convictions and ignorance weigh against adequacy
Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3))	Named plaintiffs invested in Plan and assert same injury from challenged funds	Defendants argue intra‑class conflicts and limited personal investments could diverge	Typicality satisfied — claims arise from same course of events and legal theory
23(b) certification & appointment of class counsel (Rule 23(b)(1), 23(g))	Class appropriate under (b)(1)(B) and (b)(1)(A); counsel meets 23(g) requirements	Defendants did not oppose 23(b) basis but dispute adequacy/typicality	Court did not reach 23(b) or 23(g) merits because 23(a) adequacy failure precludes certification

In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (district court has broad discretion on class certification)
In re Am. Medical Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) (Rule 23 prerequisites review)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct.) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (Sup. Ct.) (merits may be considered only insofar as they relate to Rule 23 prerequisites)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSys., 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (district courts should not convert certification into merits trial)
Gooch v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d 402 (6th Cir.) (credibility considerations in adequacy analysis)
Young v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.) (standards for representative adequacy and counsel qualification)
Bacon v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 370 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.) (numerosity discussion)
Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.) (typicality limits class claims to those fairly encompassed by representative's claims)
Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363 (Sup. Ct.) (cautions against denying certification for representative's ignorance where counsel drives complex litigation)