Stephen Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 994 F.3d 1020

Northrop Grumman sponsored defined‑benefit pension plans and delegated plan administration to an Administrative Committee, which contracted Hewitt (now Alight) to provide recordkeeping and an online pension‑estimate tool.
Plaintiffs Bafford and Wilson used Hewitt’s online estimator and received mailed “Pension Estimate Calculation Statement” forms (on Northrop letterhead) that materially overstated their expected monthly pensions.
After retirement, the error was discovered during a recordkeeper transition; Plaintiffs’ actual benefits were much lower and one plaintiff was required to repay benefits she had received.
Plaintiffs sued alleging ERISA fiduciary breaches by Hewitt, the Committee, and Northrop, a violation of ERISA §1025(a)(1)(B)(ii) for failure to provide benefit statements upon written request, and alternative state‑law claims (professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation) against Hewitt.
The district court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ERISA fiduciary claims, held that an online request can be a “written request” but the complaint lacked detail (permitting amendment), and ruled state‑law claims are not preempted by ERISA, vacating that aspect of the dismissal and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether calculating pension benefits per plan formula is a fiduciary function	Hewitt/Committee/Northrop breached fiduciary duties by providing incorrect estimates	Benefit calculation is a ministerial, non‑fiduciary task performed under fixed rules	Calculation pursuant to formula is not a fiduciary function; ERISA fiduciary claims dismissed
Whether an online/portal request satisfies §1025(a)(1)(B)(ii) "written request" requirement	Online typed requests should qualify as "written"	Plaintiffs’ online submissions are not "written" requests	Electronic writings can satisfy "written request," but complaint lacked specific factual allegations; dismissal without prejudice, leave to amend
Whether state‑law professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims are preempted by ERISA	State tort claims against Hewitt are independent and not preempted	Claims "relate to" the ERISA plan and thus are preempted	State‑law claims are not preempted; dismissal vacated and remanded for merits consideration
Whether a named fiduciary can be liable for non‑fiduciary acts or must be performing a fiduciary function	Named fiduciary status alone permits breach claims	Alleged conduct must be fiduciary in nature to give rise to ERISA breach liability	A named fiduciary must be performing a fiduciary function when the challenged conduct occurred

Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000) (ERISA breach requires that the actor was performing a fiduciary function when taking the challenged action)
Livick v. Gillette Co., 524 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2008) (benefit calculation/ministerial tasks are non‑fiduciary)
Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489 (1996) (fiduciary duty complements other statutory duties; remedies should not be displaced)
Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (state professional negligence against third‑party actuary not preempted where claim does not bear on ERISA‑regulated relationships)
Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc., 915 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing named and functional fiduciaries)
Sullivan‑Mestecky v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., 961 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2020) (permitting imputation of third‑party ministerial administrator’s negligence to fiduciary under certain communicative duties)
In re DeRogatis, 904 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2018) (discussing fiduciary communications and the scope of fiduciary duties)