Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND No. 2:18-CV-00714-DJC-AC

KEITH CORUM, JESSE AND COLLEEN

WORTHINGTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 v.

EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P.,

16 Defendants. 17 Before the Court is Defendant Edward D. Jones and Co., L.P.’s Motion for Summary Judgement. As discussed below, because Defendant was acting only as a prospective investment adviser when recommending Advisory Solutions accounts to Plaintiffs, Defendant did not owe them a fiduciary duty. Defendant did owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs Jesse and Colleen Worthington when recommending a subsequent Guided Solutions account, but Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Defendant breached its fiduciary duty. In fact, the evidence establishes that Defendant would have met its fiduciary obligations toward all Plaintiffs if it had owed a fiduciary duty. Accordingly, no jury could find in 27 …