9:23-cv-81314
S.D. Fla.Aug 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff John Stewart, on behalf of himself and other participants in the NextEra Energy Employee Retirement Savings Plan (a 401(k) plan), brought an ERISA class action against NextEra Energy, Inc.
- Stewart alleges breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence under ERISA, specifically for mismanagement of plan assets.
- Two main claims: (1) excessive recordkeeping fees paid to Fidelity, and (2) improper use of employee contribution forfeitures, allegedly contrary to the Plan Document.
- Plaintiff initiated and exhausted administrative remedies as required under the Plan prior to proceeding with the suit.
- NextEra moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the allegations were insufficient as a matter of law; the court was required to accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive Recordkeeping Fees | Nextera failed to secure similar services for lower fees, citing comparators | Plaintiff’s comparisons were not “apples-to-apples”; alleged lack of service comparability | Sufficiently plausible; dismissal denied |
| Comparator Plan Allegations (plausibility) | Comparator plans received at least same services for much less | Plaintiff’s pleadings lack detail; no sufficient factual basis for comparability | Allegations adequate at pleading stage |
| Use of Forfeitures | Nextera incorrectly used forfeitures to reduce company contributions before offsetting participant expenses | “Plan administrative expenses” doesn’t include participant-deducted recordkeeping fees | Multiple reasonable interpretations; dismissal denied |
| Administrative Remedy Exhaustion | Claims were administratively pursued and denied | (Initially raised) Plaintiff failed to exhaust | Moot; Plaintiff fully exhausted remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 8(a))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible, not just possible, claim to survive dismissal)
- Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014) (ERISA fiduciaries’ prudence duty not excused by mere compliance with the plan document)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) (establishes deferential review standard for ERISA trustee decisions, though debate on application to breach-of-duty claims)
- Hughes v. Northwestern University, 595 U.S. 170 (2022) (clarifies pleading standards for excessive fee claims under ERISA)