Doherty v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-06628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Charles Doherty v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Judge Garnett certified Defendants’ interlocutory appeal, stayed the case, and allowed limited discovery.
The former Bristol-Myers Squibb Retirement Income Plan participants who brought the putative class action, the Defendants, and the ongoing litigation are affected. The case is paused during the interlocutory appeal except for approved limited document discovery.
What happened
Charles Doherty, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al. concerns former participants in a Bristol-Myers Squibb pension plan who allege that an annuity transaction violated federal pension law. The Court had previously granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged the required injury for constitutional standing.
Defendants asked to appeal that standing ruling before the case ended. Plaintiffs did not oppose the request. The parties also jointly asked the Court to pause the case while the appeal is considered, except for limited document discovery.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted Defendants’ motion to certify the interlocutory appeal. She also stayed the case during the appeal, approved the parties’ limited-discovery agreement, and adjourned the previously scheduled conference until a later date.
The detailed version
- Doherty v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. · No. 1:24-cv-06628
- Garnett
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
The Plaintiffs are former participants in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Retirement Income Plan, a defined-benefit pension plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). They allege that Defendants violated ERISA by purchasing an annuity from Athene Annuity and Life Company and Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York to terminate the pension plan.
Defendants previously moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 29, 2025, the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged constitutional standing under Article III, meaning they had alleged the type of concrete injury required to bring the case in federal court.
Interlocutory Appeal
Defendants filed an unopposed motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify the September 29 order for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has finished the case. The statute requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a showing that an immediate appeal may materially advance the case’s resolution.
The Court found all three requirements satisfied. First, the standing issue was controlling because a decision that Plaintiffs lacked standing would end the case. The Court identified as a legal question whether the pension risk transfer transaction alleged in the complaint caused the type of injury required for Article III standing.
Second, the Court found substantial disagreement among federal courts about whether pension risk transfer transactions that promise the same future benefits can give plan participants Article III standing. The Court noted decisions reaching different conclusions, including one decision finding no actual harm because participants continued receiving their benefit payments and another finding no standing because the participants were not alleged to have received or been entitled to receive lesser benefits. The Court also emphasized that its earlier standing ruling was based on the specific allegations about the transaction in this case, not on a conclusion that every pension risk transfer transaction creates standing.
Third, the Court found that an appeal could materially advance the litigation. If the appellate court ruled that Plaintiffs lacked standing, the action would be dismissed in its entirety. The Court also found that resolving the issue could reduce the issues requiring litigation and avoid repetitive briefing, particularly because Defendants intended to raise standing again at later stages based on facts developed in discovery.
Ruling and Case Status
The Court granted Defendants’ motion to certify the September 29, 2025 order for interlocutory appeal. The parties’ joint request to stay the action was also granted. The case is stayed during the interlocutory appeal, except for the limited document discovery described in the parties’ proposed agreement, which the Court approved.
The Court also adjourned the conference scheduled for December 4, 2025, without setting a new date. It stated that the conference would be rescheduled if the appellate court denied permission to appeal or ruled that Plaintiffs have Article III standing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.