Coviello et al v. BHS Management Services, Inc. et al
| Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello and Victoria Halsted |
| BHS Management Services, Inc., John Does 1-20 and The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. |
| 3:2020cv30198 |
| December 30, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Katherine A Robertson |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 96 DECLARATION re #95 Memorandum in Support of Motion, #94 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Declaration of Mark K. Gyandoh by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - 104(b) request, #2 Exhibit 2 - 104(b) 2nd request, #3 Exhibit 3 - Ltrs to IRS and Labor, #4 Exhibit 4 - Declaration of Matthew W. Coviello, #5 Exhibit 5 - Declaration of Nathan Byrne, #6 Exhibit 6 - Declaration of Victoria Halsted, #7 Exhibit 7 - List of class cert decisions)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 95 MEMORANDUM in Support re #94 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 94 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted.(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 93 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas J Sinclair on behalf of Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted (Sinclair, Thomas) |
| Filing 92 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #90 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Adam R. Carlisle. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at # https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions # https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 91 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #89 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Thomas J. Sinclair. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at # https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions # https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 90 Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Adam R. Carlisle Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-9683726 by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Adam R. Carlisle)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 89 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Thomas J. Sinclair, Esq. Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-9673990 by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Thomas J. Sinclair, Esq. in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, #2 Certificate of Good Standing - Thomas J. Sinclair, Esq.)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 88 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #87 Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order. Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall be filed by February 23, 2023; Defendants opposition due by March 27, 2023; Plaintiffs' reply due by April 26, 2023. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 87 Joint MOTION to Amend #86 Scheduling Order,, Set Hearings,, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order and Extend Class Certification Deadlines by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted.(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 86 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. SCHEDULING ORDER:( Discovery to be completed by 5/8/2023,, Motions due by 10/10/2023), ( Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 1/25/2024 10:00 AM in Hampden Courtroom (In person only) will convert to Initial Pretrial if no dispositive motions filed before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni.). See Attached Order for Complete Details.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 85 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing: Scheduling Conference previously set for today-8/23/2022 is canceled. Court will adopt proposed dates and issue a scheduling order. Clerk has emailed all Parties in regards to this matter. (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 84 Proposed JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 Proposed Joint Case Management Schedule by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted.(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 83 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #82 Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference set for 8/23/2022 10:00 AM in Hampden Courtroom (Telephone Conference) before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 82 MOTION to Continue Initial Scheduling Conference Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Continue Initial Scheduling Conference by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted.(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 81 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference Scheduling Conference set for 8/10/2022 10:00 AM in Hampden Courtroom (Remote only) before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. Telephone Conference details to be issued by Courtroom Clerk. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 80 Defendants' ANSWER to #1 Complaint, and Affirmative Defenses by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc..(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 79 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #78 Assented-to motion for extension of time until July 22, 2022 to file an Answer. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 78 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to July 22, 2022 to File Answer by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc..(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 77 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING #10 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6).Purported class Plaintiffs are participants in a defined contribution 403(b) plan (the "Plan"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in violation of ERISA, Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. 1104(a). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to monitor the Plan's excessive recordkeeping and investment fees and failed to invest in available, lower-cost share classes to the Plan's detriment. (Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.") 54-103.) Defendants, the Plan sponsors and board of directors, argue (1) the named Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge decisions about funds in which they did not individually invest because they cannot allege injury; and (2) Plaintiffs' admitted "lack [of] knowledge of the process the... Defendants used to evaluate and select the challenged investment options, select[] the available share classes, or how they evaluated recordkeeping and management fees" undermines their ability to state plausible ERISA claims. (Dkt. No. 11 at 1.)On October 15, 2021, this court allowed Defendants' motion to stay the case pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., 142 S. Ct. 737 (2022). Once that decision issued, the court accepted additional briefing from the parties as to Hughes' impact on this motion to dismiss. (See Dkt. Nos. 71-72, 75-76.) Having reviewed the parties' extensive briefing, the court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have Article III standing because they allege Defendants caused them to suffer a redressible "'injury in fact that is concrete, particularized and actual.'" See In re Biogen, Inc. ERISA Lit., 2021 WL 3116331, at *3 (D. Mass. Jul. 22, 2021) (quoting Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615, 1618 (2020)). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants' mismanagement caused them to pay excess fees and lowered the value of their retirement accounts, and likewise harmed the retirement accounts of similarly situated class members and the value of the Plan as a whole. "A plaintiff with Article III standing may proceed under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) on behalf of the Plan or other participants." In re Biogen, 2021 WL 3116331, at *3. The court does not find Defendants' reliance on outlier Patterson v. Morgan Stanley, 2019 WL 4934834, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2019), persuasive. Most courts recognize plaintiff-participants in defined contribution plans "can establish constitutional standing to bring representative claims by pointing to injuries to Plan assets." In re Biogen, 2021 WL 3116331, at *4 (citing cases, internal quotation marks omitted); Velazquez v. Mass. Fin. Servs. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 252, 257 (D. Mass. 2018) ("It is well-established that for the purpose of constitutional standing, a plaintiff need not have invested in each fund at issue, but must merely plead an injury implicating defendants' fund management practices.") (citing cases). Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is denied. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege Defendants breached their duties of prudence and loyalty under ERISA. An ERISA fiduciary has a duty of prudence requiring he act "with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims." 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(B). "Thus, a plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones." Hughes, 142 S. Ct. at 741 (quoting Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 575 U.S. 523, 530 (2015)) (internal quotation marks and modification omitted). The duty of loyalty requires an ERISA fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and... for the exclusive purpose of... providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and... defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan." 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(A). Like the Hughes petitioners, Plaintiffs here "allege that [Defendants] failed to monitor the Plans' investments in a number of ways, including by retaining recordkeepers that charged excessive fees... and neglecting to provide cheaper and otherwise-identical alternative investments." 142 S. Ct. at 741. Despite the Plan's large size, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants "saddled Plan participants with above-market recordkeeping fees" and comparatively high investment management fees benchmarked against similar and even smaller plans. (Compl. 61-65, 74-86.) Plaintiffs further allege Defendants failed to identify available, lower-cost share classes of many of the Plan's funds and failed to replace higher cost, underperforming funds with identical, less expensive alternatives. (Id. 88-99.) Plaintiffs allege Defendants' decision to invest in higher-cost investments with revenue sharing benefited Defendants and Defendants' selected recordkeepers at the expense of Plan participants. (Id. 59-60, 70-72, 92.) Plaintiffs plead one claim for a combined breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence, and the court finds at this early stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (See id. 104-10.)Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs' lack of factual specificity, and while that argument could ultimately prevail, it is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss, particularly where, as here, Plaintiffs allege they unsuccessfully sought from Defendants Plan-related documents under ERISA Section 104(b)(4) prior to filing suit (Dkt. Nos. 18-3, 4). Cf. Mator v. Wesco Distrib., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65008, at *20 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2022) (noting plaintiffs failed to request recordkeeping agreement from defendants and dismissing excessive fee claim without prejudice). "If plaintiffs cannot state a claim without pleading facts which tend systematically to be in the sole possession of defendants, the remedial scheme of the statute will fail, and the crucial rights secured by ERISA will suffer. These considerations counsel careful and holistic evaluation of an ERISA complaint's factual allegations before concluding that they do not support a plausible inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief." Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 598 (8th Cir. 2009). Having conducted such "careful and holistic evaluation" and for the foregoing reasons, the court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss. Id. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 76 Response by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. to #75 Notice of Supplemental Authorities, . (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 75 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #73 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Kong v. Trader Joe's Co., #2 Exhibit B - Davis v. Salesforce.com Inc., #3 Exhibit C - Moore v. Humana, #4 Exhibit D - Huang v. TriNet)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 74 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #73 Assented-to Motion by Plaintiffs to File Supplemental Authority. Defendants may, but need not, file a response of no more than three pages by May 26, 2022. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 73 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Supplemental Authorities, #2 Exhibit A - Kong v. Trader Joe's Co., #3 Exhibit B - Davis v. Salesforce.com Inc, #4 Exhibit C - Moore v. Humana, #5 Exhibit D - Huang v. TriNet)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 72 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 71 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Dismiss Addressing the Effect of the Hughes v. Northwestern University Decision filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 70 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered lifting stay entered October 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 68). By February 15, 2022, the parties may file briefs of up to three pages addressing any effect on the pending motion to dismiss of the Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Northwestern Univ., No. 19-1401, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 622 (Jan. 24, 2022).(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 69 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 68 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #56 Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings. This case is stayed pending decision of the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University. See 141 S. Ct. 2882 (July 2, 2021) (granting certiorari petition).The court's discretion to stay a case is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In deciding a motion for a stay, the court balances potential prejudice to the parties and judicial economy. See Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134 (D. Me. 2009). Plaintiffs are contributors to a defined-benefit retirement plan. Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class, allege that Plan administrators violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA by investing in higher-cost share classes, failing to monitor investment performance, and accepting excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees. (Dkt. No. 1 11.) Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is pending. On December 6, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Hughes as to the following question: "[w]hether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA." See Brief for Petitioners, 2021 WL 4121358, at *i (Sept. 3, 2021). The Supreme Court's decision will likely be dispositive as to part of Defendants' pending motion and affect discovery, briefing of the pending motion, and possible amendment of the pleadings. This court has discretion to "stay this suit pending resolution of another which, 'even if it should not dispose of all the questions involved, would certainly narrow the issues in the pending cas[e] and assist in the determination of the questions of law involved.'" Taunton Gardens Co. v. Hills, 557 F.2d 877, 879 (1st Cir. 1977) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 253-54) (modification original)).Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, which may be issued in early or mid-2022, as their retirement investment accounts will continue to lose money until Defendants are enjoined from their allegedly imprudent investment strategy. Plaintiffs also argue that the Hughes decision can have no bearing on the scope of discovery. The court acknowledges that the delay caused by staying the case may cause harm in the slight to moderate range for Plaintiffs if they ultimately prevail on their claims, but the court disagrees that the Hughes decision can have no effect on the scope of discovery in this case. All in all, the court finds that the interests of judicial and litigant economy outweigh the degree of potential harm to the Plaintiffs in granting the stay. See Good, 624 F. Supp. 2d at 134 (granting stay).The parties are directed to file a joint motion to vacate the stay promptly following issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court in Hughes. The court will accept, within 14 days of the stay being lifted, briefs of no more than 3 pages addressing any effect of the Supreme Court's decision on the pending motion to dismiss. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 67 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #56 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 66 Response by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. to #54 Notice of Supplemental Authorities, . (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 65 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #64 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Response; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 64 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. 54) by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Response)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 63 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #10 MOTION to Dismiss , #56 MOTION to Stay Proceedings (Attachments: #1 Ex. 1, #2 Ex. 2, #3 Ex. 3, #4 Ex. 4, #5 Ex. 5, #6 Ex. 6, #7 Ex. 7, #8 Ex. 8, #9 Ex. 9, #10 Ex. 10, #11 Ex. 11, #12 Ex. 12)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 62 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #61 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authorities ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 61 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Ex. 1, #3 Ex. 2, #4 Ex. 3, #5 Ex. 4, #6 Ex. 5, #7 Ex. 6, #8 Ex. 7, #9 Ex. 8, #10 Ex. 9, #11 Ex. 10, #12 Ex. 11, #13 Ex. 12)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 60 ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing. Motion Hearing previously scheduled for 10/5/2021 canceled per docket 59 . (Rivera, Christina) |
| Filing 59 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered DENYING IN PART #10 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is denied. The court reserves ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) pending resolution of #56 Defendants' Motion to Stay the Proceedings.Plaintiffs are participants in a defined contribution benefit plan who allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by subjecting plan participants to excessive investment management fees, failing to monitor recordkeeping expenses, and failing to invest in lower-cost options offering better returns. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-13.) According to Plaintiffs, Defendants' mismanagement cost the plan and participants millions of dollars. (Id.) Plaintiffs sue individually and on behalf of a class; they also bring claims on behalf of the plan. (Id.) "Lawsuits brought under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) are 'brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the plan as a whole' and remedies under 29 U.S.C. 1109 'protect the entire plan.'" In re Biogen, Inc. ERISA Lit., 2021 WL 3116331, at *4 (D. Mass. July 22, 2021) (quoting Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 142 & n.9 (1985)).Defendants move for a partial dismissal pursuant to 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiffs cannot allege injury, and therefore lack standing, as to claims arising out of alleged mismanagement of funds in which Plaintiffs did not personally invest. (Dkt. No. 11 at 6-7.) The First Circuit has yet to address this issue, but the majority of courts reject Defendants' argument. See In re Biogen, 2021 WL 3116331, at *4 (listing cases); Leber v. Citigroup 401(k) Plan Inv. Comm., 323 F.R.D. 145, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding that "[t]he fact that only some of these alleged losses manifested themselves in the named plaintiffs' individual accounts does not deprive plaintiffs of their standing to seek redress on behalf of the Plan for the broader injuries the Plan incurred"). Plaintiffs allege that the plan was financially harmed by excessive fees and poor investment returns; they have, therefore, sufficiently plead an injury to the plan on whose behalf they sue, even as to the funds in which they did not personally invest. See Khan v. PTC, Inc., 2021 WL 1550929, at *3 (D. Mass. Apr. 20, 2021) (finding "allegations are sufficient to plead that the Plan suffered an injury in fact and, under the majority approach... to permit the Beneficiaries to pursue their claims on behalf of the Plan"). The court reserves ruling on the remainder of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 58 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered canceling the oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss scheduled for October 5, 2021. (See Dkt. No. 55.) The October 5, 2021 hearing is canceled pending rescheduling once Plaintiffs file their response to #56 Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 57 MEMORANDUM in Support re #56 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 56 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc..(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 55 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered regarding #10 Motion to Dismiss. Oral argument is scheduled on this motion for October 5, 2021 at 12:30 p.m. by Zoom. The parties will each have fifteen (15) minutes. The clerk of court is respectfully requested to send information for the Zoom hearing following this order.(Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 54 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #52 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - In re Biogen Inc ERISA Litigation, #2 Exhibit B - Prime Healthcare ERISA Litigation, #3 Exhibit C - McNeilly v. Spectrum Order)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 53 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #52 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority. ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 52 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Supplemental Authorities, #2 Exhibit A - In re Biogen Inc ERISA Litigation, #3 Exhibit B - Prime Healthcare ERISA Litigation, #4 Exhibit C - McNeilly v. Spectrum Order)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 51 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #49 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Hughes v Northwestern University Brief)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 50 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #49 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 49 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Exhibit A - Hughes v Northwestern University Brief)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 48 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #10 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: #1 Ex. 1 - Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 47 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #46 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 46 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Ex. 1 - Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 45 Response by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. to #42 Notice (Other), . (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 44 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #43 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 43 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority #42 by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 42 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE of Supplemental Authority and Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authorities by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Gotta v. Stantec)(Gyandoh, Mark) Modified on 6/11/2021 (Figueroa, Tamara). |
| Filing 41 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #40 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 40 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Exhibit A - Gotta v. Stantec, #3 Certificate of Service)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 39 Response by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. to #23 Notice (Other), #34 Notice of Supplemental Authorities, . (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 38 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #10 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: #1 Ex. 1 - Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc., #2 Ex. 2 - Brown v. Daikin Am., Inc.)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 37 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #35 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Defendants Notice of Supplemental Authority and ALLOWING #36 Assented-to Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs Notices of Supplemental Authority. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 36 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Notices of Supplemental Authority [23 & 34] by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 35 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Ex. A - Proposed Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Ex. 1 - Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc., #3 Ex. 2 - Brown v. Daikin Am., Inc.)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 34 Notice of Supplemental Authorities re #10 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Peterson v. Insurance Services Office, #2 Exhibit B - McGowan v. Barnabas, #3 Exhibit C - Khan v. PTC, #4 Exhibit D - Blackmon v. Zachry Holdings, #5 Exhibit E - Quest Opinion - Motion to Dismiss Denied)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 33 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered ALLOWING #29 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities. (Zamorski, Michael) |
| Filing 32 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #28 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Lindsey H. Chopin. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 31 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #27 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Stacey C.S. Cerrone. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 30 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #26 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Howard Shapiro. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Figueroa, Tamara) |
| Filing 29 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authorities by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Exhibit A - Peterson v. Insurance Services Office, #3 Exhibit B - McGowan v. Barnabas, #4 Exhibit C - Khan v. PTC, Inc., #5 Exhibit D - Blackmon v. Zachry Holdings, #6 Exhibit E - Quest Opinion - Motion to Dismiss Denied)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 28 Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Lindsey H. Chopin Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8760954 by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Lindsey Chopin)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 27 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Stacey C.S. Cerrone Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8760946 by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Stacey Cerrone)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 26 Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Howard Shapiro Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8760899 by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Howard Shapiro)(Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 25 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Francis J. Bingham (Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas J. Hoffman on behalf of BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. (Hoffman, Douglas) |
| Filing 23 NOTICE by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex A - Jones v. Coca-Cola, #2 Exhibit Ex B - Davis v. Magna)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 22 REPLY to Response to #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 21 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #19 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority and ALLOWING #20 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss [dkt. nos. 10, 11]. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 20 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Dismiss (Unopposed) by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Reply)(Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 19 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex 1 - Notice of Supplemental Authority, #2 Exhibit Ex A - Jones v Coca-Cola, #3 Exhibit Ex B - Davis v. Magna)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 18 DECLARATION re #17 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Declaration of Mark Gyandoh in Support of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex A - Letter Order granting and denying in part Motion to Dismiss, #2 Exhibit Ex B - Sandoval v. Exela (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2020), #3 Exhibit Ex C - 104(b) request, #4 Exhibit Ex D - 104(b) 2nd request, #5 Exhibit Ex E - Response to Request for Documents)(Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 17 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 16 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni 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 Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 15 Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. . (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 14 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Notification forms indicating whether or not a party has consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge have not been received in the Clerk's Office. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed on or before the close of business on March 23, 2021. Additional forms can be obtained on the Court's web page at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov. (Rivera, Melissa) |
| Filing 13 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 . (Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 12 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM in Support re #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of M. Palmer Whitney, #2 Exhibit B - 2019 Auditor Report, #3 Exhibit C - 2019 Form 5500, #4 Exhibit D - 2019 Form 5500 Instructions, #5 Exhibit E - Summary Prospectus Forms)(Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss by BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc..(Bingham, Francis) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted, Nathan Byrne. The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc. waiver sent on 1/5/2021, answer due 3/8/2021. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted, Nathan Byrne. BHS Management Services, Inc. waiver sent on 1/5/2021, answer due 3/8/2021. (Gyandoh, Mark) |
| Filing 7 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Mark K. Gyandoh. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. . (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 6 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Donald R. Reavey.. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Finn, Mary) Modified on 12/31/2020 to correct a typo. - Donald W. Reavey to Donald R. Reavey. (Finn, Mary). |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Mark K. Gyandoh Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-8573486 by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Mark K. Gyandoh, 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 0101-8573475 by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Donald R. Reavey, Esq, #2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Hellman, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to BHS Management Services, Inc., The Board of Directors of BHS Management Services, Inc.. 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. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number 0101-8572533 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Nathan Byrne, Matthew W. Coviello, Victoria Halsted. (Attachments: #1 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.
