Dover et al v. Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC et al, No. 2:2020cv11643 - Document 67 (E.D. Mich. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER denying 32 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com JASON DOVER et al., 20-CV-11643-TGB-DRG ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS I LLC et al., Dover et al v. Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC et al Doc. 67 DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Id. see also see II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. United States Id. Id. Rogers v. Stratton Industries, Inc. United States v. Ritchie see also Jones v. City of Cincinnati Id League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen Kottmyer v. Maas Albrecht v. Treon Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly Ashcroft v. Iqbal Albrecht Iqbal III. ANALYSIS A. Standing See Cleveland Branch NAACP v. City of Parma Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. Friends of the See, e.g., Davis v. Magna Int'l of Am., Inc. ee also Kurtz v. Vail Corp. Patterson Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. Fallick Patterson v. Morgan Stanley see also Wilcox v. Georgetown Univ. Marshall v. Northrop Grumman Corp. In re UBS Erisa Litig. aff'd sub nom. Taveras v. UBS AG Brown-Davis v. Walgreen Co. Fallick See, e.g. Kurtz Vanderbilt Univ. Fallick Cassell v. B. Sufficiency of breach of fiduciary duty allegations Cassell v. Vanderbilt Univ. See April Hughes et al. v. Northwestern University et al. i. Preliminary issue: time period of liability Van Loo v. Cajun Operating Co. Pegram v. Herdrich in its current form ii. Duty of prudence process Pfeil v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co. Kurtz see also Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. See, e.g., Sweda v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. 1. Failure to select lower-cost share classes Twombly Iqbal See, e.g. Davis v. Magna Int'l of Am., Inc. quoting Disselkamp v. Norton Healthcare, Inc. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. Martin v. CareerBuilder, LLC Divane v. Northwestern University Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc. Davis Disselkamp 2. Failure to select lower-cost alternative funds see also Hecker v. Deere & Co. process Id. 3. Underperformance of funds in the Plan See, e.g. Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc. See, e.g. Brotherston v. Putnam Invs., LLC Wildman v. Am. Century Servs., LLC White v. Chevron Corp. Krueger v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc. 4. Excessive recordkeeping fees Davis v. Magna Int'l of Am., Inc. iii. Duty of loyalty James v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Berlin v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. for the purpose of benefitting .” Cassell 1. Conflicted advisors Sacerdote v. New York Univ. intent 2. Failure to disclose dollar amounts of revenue sharing payments made to Fidelity iv. Conclusion C. Failure to monitor See, e.g., Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc. Karpik v. Huntington Bancshares Inc. CONCLUSION DENIED. SO ORDERED
]]>
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.
