The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) imposes duties on retirement plan fiduciaries that are "the highest known to the law", and provides a six-year statute of limitations for plan participants to pursue an action for breach of those duties. Although Plaintiffs obtained a judgment that their 401(k) plan fiduciaries had breached their duties by selecting certain investment funds for their plan within six years of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that an identical claim as to other funds that were imprudent for the same reason, and continued to harm Plaintiffs at the time of their complaint, was time-barred because the funds were initially selected more than six years earlier. The Ninth Circuit also replaced ERISA's stringent fiduciary standard with the deferential standard of review that Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) adopted in $1132(a)(1)(B) actions challenging denials of benefits.Consideration Limited:
GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER A CLAIM THAT ERISA PLAN FIDUCIARIES BREACHED THEIR DUTY OF PRUDENCE BY OFFERING HIGHER-COST RETAIL-CLASS MUTUAL FUNDS TO PLAN PARTICIPANTS, EVEN THOUGH IDENTICAL LOWER-COST INSTITUTION-CLASS MUTUAL FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE, IS BARRED BY 29 U.S.C. $1113(1) WHEN FIDUCIARIES INITIALLY CHOSE THE HIGHER-COST MUTUAL FUNDS AS PLAN INVESTMENTS MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE THE CLAIM WAS FILED."Question Presented:
Whether, under the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a "strike" while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed.