Mertens

Mertens v. Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan

Good Law
744 F. Supp. 917·1990 WL 118084·1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10783
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1990C-88-3587 MHPCalifornia4,182 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq. The parties are now before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. BACKGROUND

William Mertens and other plaintiffs filed this action on September 9, 1988 and added class allegations on June 23, 1989. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the Investment Committee of the now-terminated Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan (“Investment Committee”). According to plaintiffs, who were participants in the Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan (“Plan”), the Investment Committee members failed to insure adequate funding of the Plan and an adequate funding policy and thus breached their fiduciary duties. The court’s earlier orders in this matter covered these circumstances in greater detail than shall be done here.

In May 1986, twenty-four Plan beneficiaries filed an action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by several entities and individuals, including the Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan and the Investment Committee members named as defendants in the present…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.