1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 JUSTIN BELDOCK, et al., CASE NO. C22-1082JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION v. TO DISMISS 12 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint filed by 17 Defendants Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), the Board of Trustees of Microsoft 18 Corporation, and the 401(k) Administrative Committee of the Microsoft Corporation 19 Savings Plus 401(k) Plan (collectively, “Defendants”). (Mot. (Dkt. # 61); Reply (Dkt. 20 // 21 // 22 1 # 69).) Plaintiffs Gordon Broward and Shaadi Nezami (collectively, “Plaintiffs”1), who 2 bring this action on behalf of themselves, the Microsoft Corporation Savings Plus 401(k)
3 Plan (the “Plan”), and a proposed class, oppose the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 68).) The 4 court has considered the motion, all materials submitted in support of and in opposition to 5 the motion, and the governing law. Being fully advised,2 the court GRANTS 6 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ amended complaint with 7 prejudice and without leave to amend. 8 II. BACKGROUND
9 The court set forth the factual and procedural background of this case in detail in 10 its February 7, 2023 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original 11 complaint and dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with leave to amend. (2/7/23 Order at 2-7.) 12 Accordingly, the court focuses here on the new and amended allegations in Plaintiffs’ 13 amended complaint.
14 In its February 7, 2023 order, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had not stated a 15 claim against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence under the 16 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (2/7/23 Order at 14-18.) 17 Relying on precedent from multiple circuits, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs had based 18 1 The court previously dismissed former Plaintiff Justin Beldock’s claims for lack of 19 standing. (2/7/23 Order (Dkt. # 57) at 9-11.) Plaintiffs have not reasserted claims on behalf of Mr. Beldock in their amended complaint. (Am. Compl. (Dkt # 58); see also Redlined Am. 20 Compl. (Dkt. # 65) (reflecting changes between Plaintiffs’ original complaint and their amended complaint).)
21 2 Defendants and Plaintiffs both request oral argument. (Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1.) The court, however, concludes that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the 22 motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 their claims only on allegations that the BlackRock LifePath Index Funds at issue in this 2 case (the “BlackRock TDFs”) underperformed when compared to other target date funds
3 and had alleged nothing that would “tend to exclude the possibility” that Defendants had 4 reasons consistent with their fiduciary duties to retain the BlackRock TDFs as an 5 investment option in the Plan. (Id. (first quoting White v. Chevron, 752 F. App’x 453, 6 455 (9th Cir. 2018); then quoting Smith v. CommonSpirit Health, 37 F.4th 1160, 1166 7 (6th Cir. 2022); and then quoting Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co, 898 F.3d 820, 823 (8th 8 Cir. 2018)).) The court also concluded that (1) Mr. Beldock lacked standing to pursue his
9 claims because he failed to allege that he suffered an injury due to Defendants’ alleged 10 conduct; (2) Mr. Broward and Mr. Nezami lacked standing to pursue claims for 11 prospective injunctive relief because they were both former Plan participants and would 12 not benefit from prospective relief; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their 13 claims for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duty of loyalty, failure to monitor, co-fiduciary
14 breaches, and knowing breaches of trust because all of these claims depended on 15 Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty. (See id. at 9-13, 16 18-19.) 17 Plaintiffs now assert that the amended complaint cures the deficiencies the court 18 identified in its prior order by including allegations regarding “further plausible
19 comparators and quantitative metrics that would have provided real-time signals to 20 Defendants of the need to investigate and replace Plan investments.” (Resp. at 2.3) First, 21
3 The court notes that Plaintiffs have not amended their allegations to assert injuries 22 suffered by Mr. Broward or Mr. Nezami that would be redressed by prospective injunctive relief. 1 Plaintiffs have added comparisons of the BlackRock TDFs against the S&P Target Date 2 Indices. (Resp. at 17-19; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45-47, 49-51.) Plaintiffs describe the S&P
3 Target Date Indices as “a composite of the disparate strategies and styles present in the 4 broad universe of investable alternative TDFs” and assert that they “represent an 5 appropriate, meaningful benchmark comparator for the BlackRock TDFs.” (Am. Compl. 6 ¶ 46.) Consistent with this assertion, Plaintiffs now include a metric showing the 7 BlackRock TDFs’ performance relative to the S&P Target Date Indices in three- and 8 five-year performance charts for each quarter between the second quarter of 2016 and the
9 third quarter of 2019, along with the performance of the BlackRock TDF, the best 10 performing Comparator TDF,4 and the worst performing Comparator TDF. 11 (Id. ¶¶ 49-51.5) 12 Plaintiffs also add a new metric—the Sharpe ratio—to illustrate the BlackRock 13 TDFs’ risk-adjusted returns relative to the Comparator TDFs. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiffs allege
14 that the Sharpe ratio, which is “commonly prescribed as a component of a fiduciary 15 investment monitoring process by retirement plan investment policy statements,” 16 (See Redlined Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10 (describing Mr. Broward and Mr. Nezami’s investments in 17 the Plan), 18 (explaining why Plaintiffs have standing).) Instead, they ask the court to reconsider its dismissal of their prospective relief claims. (Resp. at 24 n.7.) The court declines Plaintiffs’ 18 invitation to reconsider its prior order.
19 4 Plaintiffs’ Comparator TDFs are four of the top-six largest target date fund suites. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-41.) 20 5 Plaintiffs’ original complaint also included three- and five-year returns through the second quarter of 2022. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 16-24; see Redlined Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-50.) As 21 the court noted in its February 7, 2023 order, the BlackRock TDFs’ performance began to improve by 2021 and later vintages were among the best-performing of the TDF suites by 2022. 22 (2/7/23 Order at 6 (citing Compl. at 23-24).) 1 accounts for differing levels of risk by measuring the performance of an investment, such as a TDF, compared to the performance of similar 2 investments, after adjusting for risk. More specifically, the Sharpe ratio represents the additional amount of return that an investor receives per unit 3 increase of risk.
4 (Id. ¶ 48.) It “is computed by comparing a fund manager’s outperformance of the 5 risk-free rate to the standard deviation of the manager’s performance.” (Id.) According 6 to Plaintiffs, the Sharpe ratio “enables the comparison of suites with disparate equity and 7 fixed income allocations as well as both ‘to’ and ‘through’ management styles (each 8 resulting in varying levels of risk) by controlling for those differences.” (Id.) Plaintiffs 9 include in their amended complaint the BlackRock TDFs’ three and five-year Sharpe 10 ratio ranking among the Comparator TDFs for each quarter between the second quarter of 11 2016 and the third quarter of 2019. (Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 JUSTIN BELDOCK, et al., CASE NO. C22-1082JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION v. TO DISMISS 12 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint filed by 17 Defendants Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), the Board of Trustees of Microsoft 18 Corporation, and the 401(k) Administrative Committee of the Microsoft Corporation 19 Savings Plus 401(k) Plan (collectively, “Defendants”). (Mot. (Dkt. # 61); Reply (Dkt. 20 // 21 // 22 1 # 69).) Plaintiffs Gordon Broward and Shaadi Nezami (collectively, “Plaintiffs”1), who 2 bring this action on behalf of themselves, the Microsoft Corporation Savings Plus 401(k)
3 Plan (the “Plan”), and a proposed class, oppose the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 68).) The 4 court has considered the motion, all materials submitted in support of and in opposition to 5 the motion, and the governing law. Being fully advised,2 the court GRANTS 6 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ amended complaint with 7 prejudice and without leave to amend. 8 II. BACKGROUND
9 The court set forth the factual and procedural background of this case in detail in 10 its February 7, 2023 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ original 11 complaint and dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with leave to amend. (2/7/23 Order at 2-7.) 12 Accordingly, the court focuses here on the new and amended allegations in Plaintiffs’ 13 amended complaint.
14 In its February 7, 2023 order, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had not stated a 15 claim against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence under the 16 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (2/7/23 Order at 14-18.) 17 Relying on precedent from multiple circuits, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs had based 18 1 The court previously dismissed former Plaintiff Justin Beldock’s claims for lack of 19 standing. (2/7/23 Order (Dkt. # 57) at 9-11.) Plaintiffs have not reasserted claims on behalf of Mr. Beldock in their amended complaint. (Am. Compl. (Dkt # 58); see also Redlined Am. 20 Compl. (Dkt. # 65) (reflecting changes between Plaintiffs’ original complaint and their amended complaint).)
21 2 Defendants and Plaintiffs both request oral argument. (Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1.) The court, however, concludes that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the 22 motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 their claims only on allegations that the BlackRock LifePath Index Funds at issue in this 2 case (the “BlackRock TDFs”) underperformed when compared to other target date funds
3 and had alleged nothing that would “tend to exclude the possibility” that Defendants had 4 reasons consistent with their fiduciary duties to retain the BlackRock TDFs as an 5 investment option in the Plan. (Id. (first quoting White v. Chevron, 752 F. App’x 453, 6 455 (9th Cir. 2018); then quoting Smith v. CommonSpirit Health, 37 F.4th 1160, 1166 7 (6th Cir. 2022); and then quoting Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Co, 898 F.3d 820, 823 (8th 8 Cir. 2018)).) The court also concluded that (1) Mr. Beldock lacked standing to pursue his
9 claims because he failed to allege that he suffered an injury due to Defendants’ alleged 10 conduct; (2) Mr. Broward and Mr. Nezami lacked standing to pursue claims for 11 prospective injunctive relief because they were both former Plan participants and would 12 not benefit from prospective relief; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their 13 claims for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duty of loyalty, failure to monitor, co-fiduciary
14 breaches, and knowing breaches of trust because all of these claims depended on 15 Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty. (See id. at 9-13, 16 18-19.) 17 Plaintiffs now assert that the amended complaint cures the deficiencies the court 18 identified in its prior order by including allegations regarding “further plausible
19 comparators and quantitative metrics that would have provided real-time signals to 20 Defendants of the need to investigate and replace Plan investments.” (Resp. at 2.3) First, 21
3 The court notes that Plaintiffs have not amended their allegations to assert injuries 22 suffered by Mr. Broward or Mr. Nezami that would be redressed by prospective injunctive relief. 1 Plaintiffs have added comparisons of the BlackRock TDFs against the S&P Target Date 2 Indices. (Resp. at 17-19; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 45-47, 49-51.) Plaintiffs describe the S&P
3 Target Date Indices as “a composite of the disparate strategies and styles present in the 4 broad universe of investable alternative TDFs” and assert that they “represent an 5 appropriate, meaningful benchmark comparator for the BlackRock TDFs.” (Am. Compl. 6 ¶ 46.) Consistent with this assertion, Plaintiffs now include a metric showing the 7 BlackRock TDFs’ performance relative to the S&P Target Date Indices in three- and 8 five-year performance charts for each quarter between the second quarter of 2016 and the
9 third quarter of 2019, along with the performance of the BlackRock TDF, the best 10 performing Comparator TDF,4 and the worst performing Comparator TDF. 11 (Id. ¶¶ 49-51.5) 12 Plaintiffs also add a new metric—the Sharpe ratio—to illustrate the BlackRock 13 TDFs’ risk-adjusted returns relative to the Comparator TDFs. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiffs allege
14 that the Sharpe ratio, which is “commonly prescribed as a component of a fiduciary 15 investment monitoring process by retirement plan investment policy statements,” 16 (See Redlined Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10 (describing Mr. Broward and Mr. Nezami’s investments in 17 the Plan), 18 (explaining why Plaintiffs have standing).) Instead, they ask the court to reconsider its dismissal of their prospective relief claims. (Resp. at 24 n.7.) The court declines Plaintiffs’ 18 invitation to reconsider its prior order.
19 4 Plaintiffs’ Comparator TDFs are four of the top-six largest target date fund suites. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40-41.) 20 5 Plaintiffs’ original complaint also included three- and five-year returns through the second quarter of 2022. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) at 16-24; see Redlined Am. Compl. ¶¶ 49-50.) As 21 the court noted in its February 7, 2023 order, the BlackRock TDFs’ performance began to improve by 2021 and later vintages were among the best-performing of the TDF suites by 2022. 22 (2/7/23 Order at 6 (citing Compl. at 23-24).) 1 accounts for differing levels of risk by measuring the performance of an investment, such as a TDF, compared to the performance of similar 2 investments, after adjusting for risk. More specifically, the Sharpe ratio represents the additional amount of return that an investor receives per unit 3 increase of risk.
4 (Id. ¶ 48.) It “is computed by comparing a fund manager’s outperformance of the 5 risk-free rate to the standard deviation of the manager’s performance.” (Id.) According 6 to Plaintiffs, the Sharpe ratio “enables the comparison of suites with disparate equity and 7 fixed income allocations as well as both ‘to’ and ‘through’ management styles (each 8 resulting in varying levels of risk) by controlling for those differences.” (Id.) Plaintiffs 9 include in their amended complaint the BlackRock TDFs’ three and five-year Sharpe 10 ratio ranking among the Comparator TDFs for each quarter between the second quarter of 11 2016 and the third quarter of 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 49-51.) 12 According to Plaintiffs, the metrics they present in their amended complaint were 13 easily accessible to Defendants and “would have been sufficient to convince a fiduciary 14 following a prudent process to investigate alternatives and ultimately replace the 15 BlackRock TDFs.” (Id. ¶ 49; see also id. ¶¶ 50-58 (including additional charts and 16 tables).) They allege that Defendants instead “failed to appropriately scrutinize the 17 BlackRock TDFs against any of the many superior TDFs available in the market, or the 18 broader TDF market as a whole.” (Id. ¶ 59.) As a result, according to Plaintiffs,
19 Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and caused Plan participants substantial 20 losses. (Id.) 21 // 22 // 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 Below, the court sets forth the standard of review, then evaluates Defendants’
3 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 4 A. Standard of Review 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal when a complaint 6 “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 7 Under this standard, the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the 8 nonmoving party, Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946
9 (9th Cir. 2005), and asks whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, 10 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 11 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 12 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 13 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
14 misconduct alleged.” Id. The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 15 relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Somers v. Apple, 16 Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 965 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that the allegations must “rise beyond 17 mere conceivability or possibility” to meet the plausibility standard). The court is not 18 required to accept as true legal conclusions or “formulaic recitation[s] of the legal
19 elements of a cause of action.” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1008 (9th Cir. 20 2012). 21 // 22 // 1 B. Breach of the Fiduciary Duty of Prudence 2 Defendants ask the court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of ERISA’s
3 fiduciary duty of prudence, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B), because, in relevant part, 4 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint again merely alleges that the BlackRock TDFs 5 underperformed against various measures and thus fails to give rise to a plausible 6 inference that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by selecting the BlackRock 7 TDFs, failing to monitor them, and retaining them in the Plan. (Mot. at 8-14.) 8 The court agrees that Plaintiffs’ amendments, which add the new Sharpe ratio
9 metric and compare the performance of the BlackRock TDFs with the S&P Target Date 10 Indices, do not save Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. 11 Rather, the Sharpe ratio metric and comparisons to the S&P Target Date Indices are 12 “merely additional measurements of investment performance” beyond those Plaintiffs 13 included in their original complaint. Hall v. Capital One Fin, Corp., No.
14 1:22-cv-00857-MSN-JFA, 2023 WL 2333304, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2023) (evaluating 15 similar amendments involving the same claims against a retirement plan that offered the 16 BlackRock TDFs and dismissing the plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim).6 As the 17 court noted in its prior order, courts across the country have rejected claims for breach of 18 the fiduciary duty of prudence under ERISA where the plaintiffs allege nothing more
19 than underperformance relative to other investment vehicles. (See 2/7/23 Order at 20
21 6 Hall was brought by the same plaintiffs’ attorneys and alleges the same claims as this case. See id. at *2 n.2 (listing eleven cases brought by Plaintiffs’ counsel “alleging the same 22 claims against other large-employer-sponsored retirement plans offering the BlackRock TDFs.”). 1 14-18); see Smith, 37 F.4th at 1160 (a claim of imprudence cannot “come down to simply 2 pointing to a fund with better performance”); Forman v. TriHealth, Inc., 40 F.4th 443,
3 448-49 (6th Cir. 2022 ) (same); Meiners, 898 F.3d at 823 (“No authority requires a 4 fiduciary to pick the best performing fund”); White, 752 F. App’x at 455 (allegations 5 were insufficient because they “showed only that [the defendant] could have chosen 6 different vehicles of investment that performed better during the relevant period”); 7 Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Cath. Med. Ctrs. Ret. Plan v. Morgan 8 Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 718 (2d Cir. 2013) (allegation that “better
9 investment opportunities were available at the time of the relevant decisions” was 10 insufficient to plausibly allege breach of fiduciary duties). Plaintiffs’ allegations, which 11 again are based solely on the BlackRock TDFs’ alleged poor performance during a brief 12 timeframe, are insufficient, without more, to raise Plaintiffs’ claim above the level of 13 speculation and into plausibility. Accordingly, the court again DISMISSES Plaintiffs’
14 claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence under ERISA.7 15 C. Secondary Claims 16 Defendants again seek the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the 17 fiduciary duty of loyalty under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A), failure to monitor, 18 co-fiduciary breaches, and knowing breaches of trust. (Mot. at 20; Reply at 11.)
19 Plaintiffs have not included any additional allegations in their amended complaint that 20
7 As it did in its prior order, the court concludes that it need not consider whether 21 Plaintiffs’ proposed comparators are meaningful benchmarks against which to measure the BlackRock TDFs’ performance where Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary claim is based solely on 22 alleged underperformance. (See 2/7/23 Order at 16.) 1 “raise a plausible inference that Defendants engaged in self-dealing, took actions for the 2 purpose of benefitting themselves or a third party at the expense of Plan participants, or
3 acted under an actual or perceived conflict of interest in administering the Plan” as 4 required to state a claim for breach of ERISA’s fiduciary duty of loyalty. (2/7/23 Order 5 at 18-19 (citing cases); see generally Redlined Am. Compl.) And, as the court noted in 6 its February 7, 2023 order, Plaintiffs agreed at oral argument on January 30, 2023, that if 7 the court dismissed their claims for breach of the duties of prudence and loyalty, it need 8 not reach their claims for failure to monitor, co-fiduciary breaches, or knowing breaches
9 of trust. (See 2/7/23 Order at 19.) Plaintiffs have not disavowed this statement, and 10 although they contend that their secondary claims should survive dismissal, their 11 argument assumes that they have sufficiently pleaded their claim for breach of the 12 fiduciary duty of prudence. (Resp. at 24 (tying Plaintiffs’ secondary claims to their 13 allegations regarding breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence).) Because the court has
14 again granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the fiduciary 15 duty of prudence, the court also GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 16 secondary claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, failure to monitor, 17 co-fiduciary breaches, and knowing breaches of trust. 18 D. Leave to Amend
19 Whether to grant leave to amend is generally within the discretion of the district 20 court. In re Daisy Sys. Corp., 97 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996). This discretion is 21 particularly broad where the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint. 22 Sisseton–Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, 1 Plaintiffs, who are represented by experienced counsel, have had two opportunities to 2 sufficiently plead their claims but have failed to do so. Therefore, the court DENIES
3 Plaintiffs leave to further amend their complaint. 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 6 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Dkt. # 58) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ amended 7 complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. 8 Dated this 24th day of April, 2023.
9 A 10 11 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22