Sacerdote v. Retirement Plan Committee

Background

The plaintiffs, identified as NYU professors and participants in NYU’s retirement plans, sued Cammack under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). They alleged that Cammack provided investment advice to NYU and breached fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by recommending expensive, underperforming investment options and options affected by the financial interests of TIAA-CREF and Vanguard, the plans’ recordkeepers.

In November 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part Cammack’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Some portions of the plaintiffs’ claims were allowed to proceed. Cammack then sought reconsideration of the decision not to dismiss the claim that Cammack breached co-fiduciary duties by advising NYU in a way that allowed TIAA-CREF to cross-sell its products and services to plan participants using participant data. The opinion calls this the “Cross-Selling Claim.”

Analysis

Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It generally is not a chance to reargue issues, present new theories, or obtain a second hearing on the merits. A party ordinarily must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked.

The court agreed with Cammack that the Cross-Selling Claim is derivative, meaning that it depends on a viable underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty by NYU. Cammack argued that the underlying claim was not viable because the plaintiffs had not brought a cross-selling claim against NYU and because a cross-selling claim against NYU-affiliated entities had previously been dismissed as duplicative of an earlier related action.

The court rejected Cammack’s definition of “viable.” It held that, in this context, a claim is viable if it has not already been rejected on its merits. The court concluded that the claims against the NYU-affiliated entities, including the cross-selling claim, had been dismissed as duplicative—a procedural disposition rather than a decision on the underlying merits. Therefore, the underlying cross-selling claim remained viable. The court also noted that Cammack cited no contrary legal authority.

Disposition

The court denied Cammack’s motion for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 305. Judge Analisa Torres did not dismiss the Cross-Selling Claim in this order.