20 F. Supp. 3d 133
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are 11 Local 501 union members and participants in the Central Pension Fund, a multiemployer defined‑benefit plan, who allege trustees failed to collect decades of delinquent employer contributions from ABM and Able.
- The Fund is a defined‑benefit pension plan; benefit accrual rates (rate multipliers determining monthly benefits) are set by Trustees and have varied over time.
- Plaintiffs claim uncollected contributions reduced plan assets, led Trustees to lower the Benefit Accrual Rate, and thus depressed participants’ monthly pensions.
- Count I alleges trustees breached ERISA fiduciary duty under § 409; Counts II and III alleged prohibited transactions and claims against ABM/Able; Plaintiffs voluntarily moved to dismiss Counts II and III.
- Trustees moved to dismiss Count I for lack of Article III standing; the court considered whether plan participants may sue representationally to redress an alleged reduction in defined‑benefit pension payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do participant‑plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue trustees on behalf of a defined‑benefit plan for failure to collect employer contributions? | Plaintiffs: ERISA authorizes participant suits on behalf of the plan; representational suits that benefit the plan are historically permitted (citing Sprint). | Trustees: For defined‑benefit plans participants lack ownership of plan assets or surplus; absent a risk of plan default or reversionary interest, participants lack a concrete, redressable injury. | Held: No. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they allege only discretionary increases to accrual rates and speculative monetary benefit; dismissal of Count I without prejudice. |
| Is alleged injury (lower Benefit Accrual Rate → lower monthly benefits) sufficiently concrete and redressable? | Plaintiffs: Trustees would likely raise accrual rates if fund health improved; therefore recovery would increase participant benefits. | Trustees: Adjustment of accrual rates is discretionary; redressability is speculative and depends on independent trustee action. | Held: The chain of causation to monetary relief is too speculative; insufficient for Article III standing. |
| Can plaintiffs obtain equitable relief (declaration/injunction) without showing individualized monetary injury? | Plaintiffs: ERISA permits equitable relief and participant suits; declaratory relief is permissible. | Trustees: The requested equitable relief is intertwined with monetary recovery and thus requires Article III standing. | Held: Equitable relief here is not independent from monetary claims; Article III standing still required and is lacking. |
| Should Counts II and III be kept or dismissed? | Plaintiffs voluntarily sought dismissal of Counts II and III without prejudice. | ABM/Trustees sought dismissal with prejudice or fees. | Held: Counts II and III dismissed without prejudice; ABM’s fee request denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (explains that defined‑benefit participants lack claim to plan assets or surplus)
- Sprint Commc’ns v. APCC Servs., 554 U.S. 269 (discusses standing of assignees to sue for recovery on behalf of others)
- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., 552 U.S. 248 (recognizes participant relief for breaches that threaten plan solvency)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury that is concrete, traceable, and redressable; cautions against reliance on discretionary acts by independent actors)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (articulates Article III standing elements)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (statutory ERISA remedies do not eliminate Article III standing requirements)
- Alphin v. United States, 704 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (denies representational Article III standing for participants in a defined‑benefit plan absent increased risk of plan default or reversionary interest)
- Harley v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 284 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.) (participant lacked Article III standing to sue on behalf of defined‑benefit plan absent direct injury)