Moon v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: May 7, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01856
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

M.P. MOON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 1:19-cv-01856-SB CORTEVA, INC. and DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.,

Defendants.

P. Bradford deLeeuw, DELEEUW LAW LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael C. McKay, MCKAY LAW, LLC, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Counsel for Plaintiff.

Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Brittany M. Giusini, Juliana R. van Hoeven, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; David S. Fryman, Katherine J. Atkinson, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

May 7, 2021 BIBAS, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. M.P. Moon, a former DuPont employee, is suing over his retirement plan. He is suing DuPont, the plan sponsor, and Corteva, DuPont’s parent. Compl. ¶¶ 5–6, D.I.

19. He claims that the companies breached their fiduciary obligations by failing to tell him he was eligible for retirement benefits. The companies have moved to dismiss. They argue that they are not plan fiduci- aries, though they concede that the plan’s Administrative Committee is and that Moon could sue it instead. D.I. 22, at 9. Moon does allege that the companies are fiduciaries. Compl. ¶¶ 5–6. But to survive

the motion to dismiss, he had to support that legal conclusion with concrete factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007). He has not and all but concedes this shortcoming. D.I. 24, at 9. So I will grant the motion and dismiss without prejudice. Moon should file an amended complaint promptly. He may add new defendants or add facts that plausibly suggest that the companies (and not just their Administrative Committee) are fiduciaries.