Barker
Barker v. American Mobil Power Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Per Curiam; Dissent by Judge FARRIS.
The plaintiffs brought this action against three former fiduciaries of an employee retirement plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the fiduciaries breached their duties under Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1104 . Finding that ERISA’s statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs’ claims with respect to two of the former fiduciaries, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of those two. After a bench trial on the plaintiffs’ remaining claim against the third fiduciary, the district court held that no breach had been committed and entered judgment in the fiduciary’s favor. The plaintiffs appeal from both judgments. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 1970, Spartan Associates, an air conditioner service and repair company, created the Spartan Service Associates Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan and Trust (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its employees. The Plan established an Administrative Committee composed of Spartan officers or employees. The Trustees of the Plan were given discretionary authority to manage and invest Plan funds but were obligated to…
Dissenting Opinion
Farris, J.
dissenting:
Athough not discussed by the majority, there is a threshold question of whether plaintiffs may assert their breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claims are brought solely on behalf of Barker and Brown. It is settled law, however, that remedies for alleged fiduciary breaches under ERISA must inure to the benefit of the entire Plan or to all plan participants; damages may not be pursued on behalf of a single beneficiary or a narrow class of beneficiaries. 1 Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins, Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 139-144 , 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3088-91 , 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985); Parker v. BankAmerica Corp., 50 F.3d 757 , 768 (9th Cir.1995); Waller v. Blue Cross of California, 32 F.3d 1337 , 1339-40 (9th Cir.1994); Horan v. Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, 947 F.2d 1412, 1417-1418 (9th Cir. 1991) (“plaintiffs fail to present a fiduciary breach claim if the only remedy sought is for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the Plan as a whole”). Because plaintiffs seek damages merely on behalf of themselves, and not the Plan, “ERISA does not provide recovery for the remedies sought.” Horan, 947 F.2d at 1417 .