Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
February 11, 2022, Argued; June 1, 2022, Filed
[*128] OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge
In this interlocutory appeal, fiduciaries of a retirement plan appeal the District Court's certification of a class of participants who allege the fiduciaries breached their duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). At issue in this case is whether the typicality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) is satisfied when the class representatives [**2] did not invest in each of a defined contribution retirement plan's available investment options.
We will affirm. Because the class representatives allege actions or a course of conduct by ERISA fiduciaries that affected multiple funds in the same way, their claims are typical of those of the class.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Universal Health Services, Inc. sponsors the Universal Health Services, Inc., Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"), a defined contribution retirement plan,2 in which qualified employees can participate and invest a portion of their paycheck in selected investment options. The Plan's investment options and administrative arrangements are chosen and ratified by the UHS Retirement Plans Investment Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee is appointed and overseen by Universal. Both Universal and the Committee serve as the Plan's fiduciaries and administrators (collectively, "Universal").
Since 2014, the Plan's available investment options consisted of thirty-seven funds, including mutual funds and a collective investment trust. As with most investment funds, the Plan funds charge participants annual management fees. The Plan also charges participants an annual [**3] recordkeeping and administrative fee. Each year, every investor in the Plan would pay the annual recordkeeping and administrative fee, plus the additional fees associated with whichever investment fund or funds in which he or she chose to invest.
Among the investment options is the Fidelity Freedom Fund suite, consisting of thirteen target date funds. Target date funds are managed funds that shift in investment [*129] strategy as a target retirement year approaches. The Fidelity Freedom Fund suite was designated as the Plan's Qualified Default Investment Alternative, meaning Universal would automatically invest Plan participants' money in one of the thirteen Fidelity Freedom Funds if no other investment selection was made.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
36 F.4th 124 *; 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 15001 **; 112 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1770
MARY K. BOLEY; KANDIE SUTTER; PHYLLIS JOHNSON, Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Universal Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; UNIVERSAL INC.; THE UHS RETIREMENT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; DOES 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown Universal Health Services, Inc. and Health Universal Health Services, Inc. Retirement Plans Investment Committee, Appellants
Prior History: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. D.C. Civil Action No. 2-20-cv-02644. (District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney).
Boley v. Universal Health Servs., 337 F.R.D. 626, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42257, 2021 WL 859399 (E.D. Pa., Mar. 8, 2021)
funds, named plaintiff, invested, class representative, Plaintiffs', imprudent, options, class member, plan participant, allegations, retirement, concrete, injuries, district court, certification, thirty-seven, managed, recordkeeping, fiduciaries, monitor, annual, class certification, target date, breach of fiduciary duty, conflicts, contends, damages
Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Pensions & Benefits Law, ERISA, Civil Litigation, Class Actions, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Abuse of Discretion, Special Proceedings, Certification of Classes, Appellate Review, Judicial Discretion, Typicality, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption