Richard J. KWASNY v. R. Alexander ACOSTA, Secretary Dept. of Labor
05/07/2018
Response Brief

Rudel v. Hawaii Management Alliance Association
04/16/2018
Amicus Brief

Malave v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
02/01/2018
Amicus Brief

Springer v. Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan Total Care
01/19/2018
Amicus Brief

In re: George W. Mathias
December 8, 2016
Amicus brief

Secretary's Petition for Permission to Appeal Certified Interlocutory Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
December 2, 2016
Brief

Van Loo v. Cajun Operating Company d/b/a Church's Chicken
November 30, 2016
Amicus brief

Thole v. U.S. Bank
October 19, 2016
Amicus brief  

Perez v. Harris (In re Harris)
September 30, 2016
Amicus Brief

Tatum v. RJR Pension Investment Committee
September 9, 2016
Amicus Brief

Hitchcock v. Cumberland Univ. 403(b) DC Plan
September 2, 2016
Amicus Brief

Richard J. Kwasny v. Thomas Perez, Secretary Department of Labor
August 10, 2016
Amicus Brief

Schoenfeld v. Perez
July 15, 2016
Response Brief

Fletcher v. Convergex Group, LLC et al
June 27, 2016
Amicus Brief

Solnin v. Sun Life & Health Insurance Co, Genworth Life & Health Insurance Co, GE Group Life Assurance Co, Phoenix Life Insurance Co
June 19, 2016
Amicus Brief

In Re Lorna Clause
June 16, 2016
Amicus Brief

Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc.
May 24, 2016
Amicus Brief

Trujillo v. Landmark Enterprises
May 6, 2016
Amicus Brief

Severstal Wheeling, Inc. Retirement Committee, et al. v. WPN Corp., et al
March 15, 2016
Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion

Whitley v. BP, plc
March 11, 2016
Amicus curaie in support of plaintiff-appellees

Allen v. GreatBanc Trusty Company
February 16, 2016
Amicus in support of appellants requesting reversal

Perez v. Koresko
February 10, 2016
Brief for appellee Secretary of Labor

Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
October 15, 2014
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee

Robert Plan Corporation, Kenneth Kirschenbaum v. United States Department of Labor
October 7, 2014
Brief for the United States Department of Labor

Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
July 28, 2014
Amicus, in support of petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc

Secretary, Department of Labor v. Koresko
June 27, 2014
Brief for the Secretary of Labor

Santomenno v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company
May 28, 2014
Amicus, corrected, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal

No. 13-130 Thurber v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
May 1, 2014
Amicus

No. 13-550 Glenn Tibble v. Edison International
May 1, 2014
Amicus, supporting petitioners

New York State Psychiatric Association, Inc., v. UnitedHealth Group
April 28, 2014
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal

Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank
March 31, 2014
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant

No. 12-751 Fifth Third Bancorp v. John Dudenhoffer
March 1, 2014
Amicus, supporting respondents

No. 11-1155 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. v. Dale Fossen
December 21, 2012
Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari

Tri3 Enterprises, LLC v. Aetna, Inc.
November 30, 2012
Amicus, supporting plaintiff-appellant

Gearlds v. Entergy Services, Inc.
September 4, 2012
Amicus, in support of appellant

Arendt v. Solis
August 16, 2012
On appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington

Kopp v. Klein
August 15, 2012
Amicus, in support of the plaintiff-appellant

Pacific Shores Hospital v. United Behavioral Health and Wells Fargo and Company Health Plan
August 13, 2012
Amicus, in support of the plaintiffs-appellants

Access Mediquip LLC v. UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company
July 11, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant

U.S. Airways, Inc., v. James E. McCutchen, et al.
June 25, 2012
Amicus curia.

Leimkuehler v. American United Life Insurance Corp.
June 1, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant urging reversal and remand

White v. Marshal and Ilsley Corp.
May 30, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting affirmance in part and reversal in part

Mozingo v. Trend Personnel Services
May 24, 2012
Amicus, in support of neither party

Frommert v. Conkright
May 11, 2012
Amicus, supporting appellants and requesting reversal

Barboza v. California Association of Firefighters
February 7, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant

In Re: Lehman Brothers Erisa Litigation
January 11, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants requesting reversal

In Re: Beacon Securities Litigation• PDF Version• January 9, 2012
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Sherfel v Glassman
December 7, 2010
Amicus, in support of defendant's memorandum on opposition to plaintiffs' request for injunctive and declaratory relief

Allen v Wachovia Corp
November 24, 2010
Amicus, supporting plaintiffs-appellants

Lanfear v Home Depot, Inc
November 22, 2010
Amicus, in support of the plaintiff-appellant

Kenseth v Dean Health Plans, Inc
November 22, 2010
Amicus

McLemore v Regions Bank
November 19, 2010
Amicus, supporting appellants

Sewright v ING Groep, NV
November 18, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants

Quan v Computer Sciences Corp
November 1, 2010
Amicus, in support of petition for en banc rehearing

No 09-804 Cigna Corp v Amara
October 22, 2010
Amicus, supporting respondents

In Re: JP Jeanneret Associates, Inc
October 18, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss claims

Solis v The Food Employers Labor Relations Association and United Food and Commercial Workers Pension Fund, et al
October 18, 2010
On appeal from the US District Court for the District of Maryland

In Re: Beacon Securities Litigation
October 1, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs' memoranda in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss claims

Renfro v Unisys
September 16, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal

Boyd v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
September 14, 2010
Amicus, supporting defendant-appellee

Fish v Greatbanc Trust Corp
June 25, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment

Barboza v California Association of Firefighters
June 15, 2010
Amicus, in support of the plaintiff-appellant

Gearren v McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc
June 4, 2010
Amicus, in support of appellants requesting reversal

Lingis v Motorola, Inc
May 14, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants

Solis v Malkani
May 3, 2010
On appeal from the US District Court for the District of Maryland

No. 08-1515 Golden Gate Restaurant Association v City and County of San Francisco
May, 2010
Amicus, on petition for writ of certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Debbie McCravy v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
April 28, 2010
Amicus, supporting plaintiff-appellant

Tullis v UMB Bank
April 15, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiffs-appellants

Loomis v Exelon Corporation
March 10, 2010
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellants

No. 09-448 Hardt v Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
March, 2010
Amicus, supporting petitioner

Matschiner v Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
February 3, 2010
Amicus, supporting defendant-appellant and requesting reversal

Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
November 10, 2008
Brief for the Secretary of Labor as amicus curia supporting appellee's petition for hearing en banc

Johnson v. Couturier
September 24, 2008
Amicus, in support of motion for preliminary injunction

Chao v. Meixner
July 11, 2008
DOL argued that the fiduciaries of a health benefit plan are not entitled to a jury trial in DOL's lawsuit under ERISA section 502(a)(2) in which DOL seeks to recover the plan's monetary losses caused by the defendants' alleged fiduciary misconduct because the remedy sought is equitable in nature

Sowers v. FreightCar America
June 6, 2008
DOL argued that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction reinstating a class of participants to their employment at a FreightCar plan grants equitable relief within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3)

Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.
May 12, 2008
Memorandum in further support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

McLemore v. Regions Bank
May 5, 2008
DOL argued that: (1) an ERISA fiduciary who is also the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring an ERISA action and; (2) the defense of in pari delicto cannot be asserted against an ERISA successor trustee

No. 07-841 Amschwand v. Spherion
May, 2008
Amicus, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

No. 07-636 Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings
May, 2008
Amicus, in support of neither party

Hecker v. Deere
April 2, 2008
DOL argued that: (1) ERISA section 404(c) does not provide a defense to plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants imprudently and disloyally selected investment choices with excessive fees; (2) fiduciaries' duties to disclose material information can arise from their core statutory duties of prudence and loyalty, not just from specific reporting and disclosure requirements; and (3) the district court erred in holding that defendants were not fiduciaries with respect to the selection of funds based solely on the plan documents without regard to the defendants' actions

Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
March 27, 2008
DOL argued that the employer spending requirements in San Francisco's Health Care Security Ordinance have a prohibited connection with ERISA plans and are preempted because: (1) they mandate employee benefit structures or their administration because employers can comply with the law's requirements only be establishing or maintaining ERISA plans; and (2) the spending requirements interfere with uniform plan administration

No. 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn
March 21, 2008
Amicus, supporting respondent

Grabek v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
February 5, 2008
DOL argued that the district court improperly denied class certification where (1) the reasons for denial were unknown, and (2) the district court failed to provide any analysis

Chao v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.
February 3, 2008
Memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

Harzewski v. Guidant Corp.
December 28, 2006
DOL argued that a former employee who has received a benefit distribution from a pension has standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred prior to the distribution

Rogers v. Baxter International, Inc.
December 8, 2006
DOL argued that ERISA section 502(a)(2) confers standing on persons seeking monetary relief for a defined contribution plan due to an alleged breach of fiduciary duty even though the relief will be allocated only to a subset of participants in the plan

Calpine Corporation
November 16, 2006
DOL argued that fiduciaries of a defined contribution pension plan were not entitled to a presumption that they were prudent when they continued to purchase employer stock after they became aware of accounting irregularities concerning the company

Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Felder
November 6, 2006
The Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act is preempted because it "relates to" employee benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA section 514(a), by mandating that employers pay a certain level of health care benefits to their employees or pay a penalty to the State

Howell v. Motorola, Inc.
November 1, 2006
DOL argued that a former participant of a 401(k) plan, who had received a distribution of benefits, had standing to sue the fiduciaries under ERISA section 502(a)(2) and the participant had a "colorable claim for benefits" because the fiduciary breaches allegedly occurred while he was actively enrolled in the plan

Bridges v. American Electric Power Co.
October 19, 2006
DOL argued that a former participant, who received a distribution of his 401(k) plan account had standing to sue based on his "colorable claim for benefits."

Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc.
September 1, 2006
DOL argued that an employee who has taken his distribution from a defined contribution plan has a "colorable claim for benefits" and, therefore, standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that occurred while he was in the plan because any losses recovered will increase his vested benefits

Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc.
August 16, 2006
DOL argued that the district court erred when it held that fiduciaries of 401(k) plans have no discretion or fiduciary duty with regard to employer stock funds because relevant plan documents require that they offer the employer stock fund and that an employer match be made in company stock

Dickerson v. Feldman
July 17, 2006
DOL argued that a participant who received a distribution from a defined contribution plan has standing to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) to recover losses to the plan resulting from fiduciary breaches that allegedly occurred while he was in the plan

Woods v. Southern Co.
July 14, 2006
DOL argued that ERISA does not require plaintiff to exhaust internal plan review procedures before bringing suit under sections 409(a) and 502(a)(2) for losses to a plan caused by fiduciary breaches; and exhaustion is not required when a plan provides no procedures for review of fiduciary breach claims, the reviewing fiduciary would have been powerless to provide the loss remedy sought by plaintiffs, and exhaustion of the review procedure provided by the plan would have been futile

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc.
July 12, 2006
DOL argued that the appellate panel erred when it held that a plan participant seeking losses attributable to his 401(k) plan account resulting from a fiduciary's failure to follow his investment instruction may not sue for losses to the plan. The participant alleged that there were fewer assets in the plan as a result of the fiduciary breach and, therefore, he was authorized to sue under ERISA sections 409 and 502(a)(2) which provide for recovery of "any losses" to the plan

Holtzscher v. Dynegy Inc.
June 28, 2006
DOL argued that former participants of a defined contribution pension plan who have received their lump sum payments have standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that caused losses to the plans before termination; and former participants have colorable claims for benefits because losses recovered by the plans will result in larger benefit payments to them

Vaughn v. Bay Environmental Management Inc.
June 7, 2006
DOL argued that plaintiffs, who claim that fiduciary breaches caused a diminution in the amount of benefits they were paid when the defendant terminated the defined contribution plans in which they participated, have standing to bring their suit. Plaintiffs have a colorable claim that alleged fiduciary breaches have affected their plan benefits and thus meet the statutory standing criteria. Termination of the plans does not destroy standing

Green v. ExxonMobil Corp.
May 25, 2006
DOL argued (1) that ERISA section 502(a)(3) authorized an award of make-whole monetary relief for a beneficiary against a breaching fiduciary and (2) that a beneficiary may bring a lawsuit simultaneously alleging that he is entitled to make-whole monetary relief for fiduciary breaches resulting in a denial of the benefits

No. 05-260 Sereboff v Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
February, 2006
Amicus, supporting respondent

In Re: UAL Corporation
December 17, 2004
Amicus, letter response

In Re: Schering-Plough Corporation ERISA Litigation
October 20, 2004
Amicus, supporting plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal

Midatlantic v. Sereboff
July 8, 2004
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee

Glanton v. AdvancePCS Health
July 1, 2004
Amicus, in support of appellant and requesting reversal

Agway v. Magnuson
June 18, 2004
Amicus, in opposition to motions to dismiss

QualChoice v. Rowland
June 17, 2004
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellant's petition for en banc rehearing

Tatum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
May 7, 2004
Amicus, in support of appellant and reversal of the District Court's decision

U.S. Department of Labor v. Grayson
April 16, 2004
On appeal from and order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon

Nicolaou v. Horizon Media
March 12, 2004
Amicus, in support of appellant for reversal

Milofsky v. American Airlines, Inc.
February 27, 2004
Amicus, supporting plaintiffs-appellants and requesting reversal

WorldCom Inc.
January 15, 2004
DOL argued that appointing officials have a duty to monitor the fiduciaries they appoint and that plaintiffs do not have to plead the elements of fraud to state a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty, even when the alleged breaches involve claims of misrepresentation

Gerosa v Savasta
November 1, 2002
The district court for the Southern District of New York held that ERISA preempts a state law claim for malpractice brought by plan trustees against actuaries to the plan, but provides a federal common law claim for damages against such entities. DOL argued that the court erred on both points

Stern v IBM
October 15, 2002
The district court issued an order holding that IBM's sick leave program constituted an ERISA plan, so that Stern's claim for breach of contract actually stated a claim for ERISA benefits and therefore was properly removed to federal court. DOL argued that under the Secretary's "payroll practices" regulation, the sick leave program is not an ERISA plan

Sardagna v. Glaziers Pension Trust
October 15, 2002
Amicus, in support of plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant

Mario v P&C Food Markets
September 10, 2002
DOL argued that a summary plan description need not contain information concerning the discretion afforded the plan administrator to interpret plan terms

Tittle v Enron Part 1
August 30, 2002
DOL argued that: (1) The duty to protect retirement plans falls not only on the trustees who directly oversee the plans, but also on top executives and officials who are responsible for appointing the fiduciaries and monitoring their performance; (2) If any of these fiduciaries were aware or should have been aware that the employees were misinformed about the stability of Enron stock, they had a duty to take appropriate action to protect their retirement investments; (3) This could include investigating allegations of accounting fraud, disclosing the true facts to plan participants, the investing public and/or other fiduciaries, and stopping further investment in employer stock; (4) Disclosing information about accounting irregularities to the public, or refusing to purchase more Enron stock and elimination it as an investment option, is fully consistent with the securities laws, which forbid buying or selling stock based on "inside information" that the general public does not have; (5) That fiduciaries have an obligation to ensure that investments in employer securities, whether in a 401(k) plan or an ESOP, are prudent, notwithstanding plan provisions that contemplate or favor such investments; (6) That directed trustees cannot follow directions that they know, or because of "red flags" ought to know are imprudent or would otherwise violate ERISA; (7) That participants may recover monetary relief if they can prove that the fiduciaries breached their duties with regard to the cash balance plan; and (8) -+That, even if it is a non-fiduciary, Arthur Anderson may be liable for equitable relief if it knowingly participated in the fiduciary breaches of others

Harley v 3M Rehearing
May 22, 2002
DOL filed a brief in support of en banc and panel rehearing making the same arguments as in the brief above

Keen v Weaver
February 13, 2002
DOL argued that ERISA and the pension plan documents determine the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits, and that the court should not develop a federal common law that would supplant the written designation rule

Ostler v Oce-USA Inc.
February 8, 2002
DOL argued that equitable relief within the meaning of Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA includes the recovery from a fiduciary of any direct monetary loss caused by the fiduciary's breach of its obligations