Thole v. U.S. Bank, No. 16-1928 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against defendants, challenging the management of a defined benefit pension plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated sections 404, 405, and 406 of ERISA by breaching their fiduciary obligations and causing the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions with a U.S. Bank subsidiary, FAF Advisors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case as moot based on the Plan's overfunded status where there was no actual or imminent injury to the Plan itself that caused injury to plaintiffs' interests; dismissal of the Equities Strategy claim on statute-of-limitations and pleading grounds; and dismissal of plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - ERISA. This court's opinion in Harley v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. co. 284 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2002) holds that when a defined benefits plan is overfunded, a participant in the plan no longer falls within the class of plaintiffs authorized under Section 1132(a)(2) to bring suit claiming liability under Section 1109 for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and the district court did not err in dismissing the matter; under both Section 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Act, plaintiffs must show actual injury - to the plaintiffs' interest in the Plan and to the Plan itself - to fall within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue under the statute; when the Plan is overfunded, there is no actual or imminent injury to the Plan itself that caused injury to the plaintiffs' interest, so dismissal of the claims for relief under Section 1132(a)(3) was proper; no error in denying plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees as the suit did not act as a catalyst to bring about a voluntary change in defendant's behavior. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.