762 F.3d 450

5th Cir.

2014

Randy KOPP, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Scott W. KLEIN; Donald B. Reed; Stephen L. Robertson; Thomas S. Rogers; Paul E. Weaver; John J. Mueller; Jerry V. Elliot; Samuel D. Jones; Katherine J. Harless; The Employee Benefits Committee; Georgia Scaife; John Does 1-20; William Gist; Steven Gaberich; Clifford Wilson; Billy Mundy; Andrew Coticchio; The Human Resources Committee; Frank P. Gatto, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-10416

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Aug. 7, 2014.

758 F.3d 450

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Thomas James McKenna, Esq., Gainey McKenna & Egleston, New York, N.Y., Roger F. Claxton, Law Office of Roger F. Claxton, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jay P. Lefkowitz, David Scott Flugman, Esq., Attorney, Andrew George Horne, Eric Foster Leon, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., New York, N.Y., James Philip Gillespie, Esq., Attorney, Christopher Landau, Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Dee J. Kelly, Jr., Marcus Gerardo Mungioli, Kelly, Hart & Hallman, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Mary Ellen E. Signorille, Senior Attorney, American Association of Retired Persons, Washington, DC, Sara Lynn Johnson, U.S. Department of Labor, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Randy Kopp, an employee of Idearc, Inc., and a participant in the Idearc Management Plan (“the Plan“), brought this Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA“) action on behalf of all current and former participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held shares of the Idearc Stock Fund from November 21, 2006 through March 31, 2009. The district court dismissed Kopp‘s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Fulmer v. Klein, No. 3:09-CV-2354-N, 2012 WL 7634148 (N.D.Tex. Mar. 15, 2012). In an earlier opinion, we affirmed. Kopp v. Klein, 722 F.3d 327 (5th Cir.2013). The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014).”

We VACATE the judgment of the Northern District of Texas, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court‘s opinion.¹

Notes

Plaintiff-Appellant‘s motion to remand and Defendants-Appellees’ cross-motion for supplemental briefing are denied as moot.