Harris v. Koenig
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120226
D.D.C.2010Background
- Former Waste Management employees allege ERISA fiduciary breaches in the plan’s stock investments and in the handling of securities settlements that affected about 30,000 participants.
- Two settlements in Illinois and Texas releases purportedly discharged some ERISA claims, potentially affecting which counts remain viable.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification on Counts I-V (first period) and VI-IX (second period) on behalf of the plan as a whole, with Count X later withdrawn.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the Amended Motion for Class Certification, leaving a narrowed class for pre-merger stock (WMX) claims but not post-merger stock (WMI) claims.
- Counts I-IX arise under ERISA § 502(a)(2); plaintiffs contend plan-wide losses flowed from fiduciary breaches and seek plan-wide liability and relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common questions predominate for Rule 23(a)? | Common issues affect all class members across periods. | Inconsistent theories across Counts I-V and VI-IX defeat commonality and typicality. | Commonality satisfied; potential release scope does not defeat common questions. |
| Is typicality met given Illinois release uncertainties? | Named plaintiffs share the same plan-wide claims as others. | Conflicts over release scope may yield non-identical claims among class members. | Typicality satisfied; potential conflicts are speculative and addressable via subclasses. |
| Is the adequacy of representation satisfied for Rule 23(a)(4)? | Named plaintiffs and counsel will vigorously represent the class. | Plaintiffs lack knowledge of details and may be inadequate. | Adequacy established; plaintiffs sufficiently aligned with class interests and counsel capable. |
| Should the class be certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2)? | Plan-wide ERISA breaches warrant 23(b)(1) certification to avoid inconsistent orders; monetary relief is incidental but relief can be plan-wide. | LaRue limits 23(b)(1)(B) and monetary relief undermines 23(b)(1) certification; (b)(2) inappropriate for primarily monetary remedies. | Certification under 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) appropriate; not certified under 23(b)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (U.S. 2008) (ERISA §502(a)(2) provides plan-related recovery, including plan asset value in an individual account)
- In re Polaroid ERISA Litig., 240 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (class-wide release scope questions suitable for certification)
- Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2009) (ERISA fiduciary breach class actions and certification standards)