Brown v. The MITRE Corporation et al
| Aaron Brown |
| The MITRE Corporation, The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation and John Does 1-30 |
| 1:2021cv11605 |
| September 29, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1132 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #11 Motion to Stay proceedings pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University.Defendants, The MITRE Corporation, its Board of Trustees, and Investment Advisory Committee, filed a Motion to Stay all proceedings in this case pending the United States Supreme Courts decision in Divane v. Northwestern Univ., 953 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2020), cert. granted sub nom. Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 2021 WL 2742780 (U.S. July 2, 2021) (No. 19-1401) (ECF 11-12). In Northwestern, plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because they caused a retirement plan to pay allegedly excessive fees for recordkeeping services and offer certain mutual funds in a more expensive share class when a cheaper share class was available. The issue before the Supreme Court in Northwestern is whether such allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Oral argument in Northwestern is scheduled for December 6, 2021, with a decision to be issued no later than June of 2022.Here, plaintiff Aaron Brown brings two claims on behalf of a proposed class of participants and beneficiaries in The MITRE Corporation Qualified Retirement Plan and Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan. Count I alleges that the Committee failed to adequately monitor the Plans administrative and recordkeeping expenses; and failed to investigate and utilize available lower-cost share classes of certain mutual funds in the Plans. Compl. 55-82, 85. Count II alleges that MITRE and the Board failed to monitor the Committee in carrying out its fiduciary duties. Compl. 90-96. The Complaint was filed on September 29, 2021, and defendants response is due on December 6, 2021.Consistent with the courts inherent powers to efficiently control its docket, and having balanced the competing equities, I find that a STAY is the sensible way to proceed. Where the alleged harm affects a putative class of claimants, it is in their collective interest, as well as that of defendants, that the case be efficiently, economically, and correctly decided. The Supreme Courts decision will provide binding authority as to the pleading standard that the court will apply to these claims, streamline discovery, and possibly eliminate an appeal. Accordingly, the court STAYS this case until the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Northwestern. The court directs the parties to file a joint status report ten days after the issuance of the decision with a proposed deadline for either the filing of an Amended Complaint or a response to the current Complaint. (Zierk, Marsha) |
| Filing 20 STIPULATION and Joint Motion to Stay Defendants' Responsive Pleading Deadline by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Engelman, Keri) |
| Filing 19 REPLY to Response to #11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University filed by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Engelman, Keri) |
| Filing 18 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #17 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Counsel should now file the Reply as a separate document on the docket. (Zierk, Marsha) |
| Filing 17 MOTION for Leave to File a Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Stay Proceedings by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Reply Memorandum)(Engelman, Keri) |
| Filing 16 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Jeremy P. Blumenfeld and granting #15 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Eleanor R. Farrell. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at # https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Eleanor R. Farrell Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-9048289 by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Eleanor R. Farrell in support of Motion to Admit Non-Resident Attorney Pro Hac Vice)(Engelman, Keri) |
| Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Jeremy P. Blumenfeld Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-9048267 by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Jeremy P. Blumenfeld in support of Motion to Admit Non-Resident Attorney Pro Hac Vice)(Engelman, Keri) |
| Filing 13 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University filed by Aaron Brown. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 12 MEMORANDUM in Support re #11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University filed by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University by The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. (Engelman, Keri) Modified on on 10/28/2021 to docket memorandum in support as a separate entry per CM/ECF procedures (Pacho, Arnold). |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Aaron Brown. The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation waiver sent on 10/6/2021, answer due 12/6/2021. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Aaron Brown. The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation waiver sent on 10/6/2021, answer due 12/6/2021. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Aaron Brown. The MITRE Corporation waiver sent on 10/6/2021, answer due 12/6/2021. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 7 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #4 , #5 , and #6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Added Donald R. Reavey, Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, and Mark K. Gyandoh. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at # https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-8985803 by Aaron Brown. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq., #2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq. Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-8985783 by Aaron Brown. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq., #2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Donald R. Reavey Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number AMADC-8985773 by Aaron Brown. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Donald R. Reavey, Esq, #2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to The Board of Trustees of The MITRE Corporation, The Investment Advisory Committee of The MITRE Corporation, The MITRE Corporation. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Burgos, Sandra) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-8983436 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Aaron Brown. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Form)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
