Larson v. Allina Health System
- Susan Nelson
- 0:17-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Larson v. Allina Health System: Judge Nelson denied Huang’s request to file an outside brief and denied as moot his request to reply.
Non-party Shiyang Huang’s ability to file an amicus brief or reply in the pending class action; the ruling also affected the case’s settlement proceedings by leaving the existing schedule in place.
What happened
Larson v. Allina Health System is a class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated fiduciary duties under a federal employee-benefits law while managing retirement savings plans. The case was proceeding toward a fairness hearing on a proposed settlement.
Non-party Shiyang Huang, who was not a class member, asked to file a brief supporting neither side. He argued that the court should consider constitutional and settlement-related concerns, including issues raised in another case in which he had objected to a settlement. The plaintiffs and defendants opposed his request.
The court found Huang’s proposed participation untimely, unhelpful, and unnecessary, and noted that it had already decided the plaintiffs had standing and that objections to the settlement had been filed. Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the request to file the brief and denied as moot Huang’s request to file a reply.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Allina Health System · No. 0:17-cv-03835
- Susan Nelson
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought this class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law governing employee-benefit plans. They alleged that the defendants violated fiduciary duties while managing various retirement savings plans. The court previously granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties later reported that they had agreed to the basic terms of a settlement. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing.
Non-party Shiyang Huang, who was not a class member, moved for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. An amicus curiae is a person or organization that is not a party but asks to provide information or arguments to the court. Huang said his proposed filing would address alleged Article III standing and due-process concerns, his involvement in a separate ERISA settlement case, and similarities between that case and this one. The plaintiffs and defendants opposed the motion. Huang also moved for permission to file a reply responding to their opposition.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that permission to participate as an amicus is discretionary and may be granted or refused based on whether the proposed information is timely, useful, or otherwise helpful. The court found that Huang’s involvement in the separate case did not provide a sufficient reason to participate here. The court also noted that the Eighth Circuit had rejected his appeal in that case, making any suggestion that this case should be stayed pending its resolution moot.
The court further stated that Huang’s arguments about standing were meritless because the court had already held that the plaintiffs had standing. It also rejected his assertion that few objectors would object to the settlement, noting that at least two objections had already been filed. Overall, the court determined that Huang’s proposed participation was not timely, useful, or helpful.
Disposition
The court DENIED Shiyang Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party. It DENIED AS MOOT his Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply. The order was signed by Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.