Cates v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

Background

The court considered the defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration of an earlier order dated November 15, 2018. That earlier order granted class certification concerning the plaintiffs’ claims under count V. The defendant did not ask the court to reconsider certification of the plaintiffs’ recordkeeping claims.

The defendant sought reconsideration concerning three investment funds—Vanguard Energy, Vanguard Precious Metals, and Vanguard U.S. Growth—in which the plaintiffs did not invest. It asked the court to reconsider class certification as to those funds and to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against them for lack of standing under Article III, the Constitution’s requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete stake in a federal lawsuit.

The opinion states that the defendant initially sought reconsideration concerning seventeen of twenty-two challenged funds. The plaintiffs later said they intended to pursue claims concerning only six funds, including the three funds in which they had not invested.

Legal standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Generally, a party must identify controlling decisions or evidence that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. Recognized grounds include a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent a serious injustice. Reconsideration is not a vehicle for rearguing old issues, presenting new theories, or obtaining a second opportunity to litigate the matter.

Court’s analysis

The defendant relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank. In that case, participants in a defined-benefit plan—one that provided fixed benefit payments—challenged alleged mismanagement of plan assets. The Supreme Court held that those plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their monthly payments would remain the same whether they won or lost.

The court found that Thole did not invalidate the 2018 class-certification order. It emphasized that Thole involved a defined-benefit plan, while the circumstances before this court involved a defined-contribution plan. The court explained that the value of benefits in a defined-contribution plan can be affected by investment decisions, unlike the fixed payments in Thole.

The court also rejected the argument that a defined-contribution plan participant must show an injury connected to every challenged fund before asserting claims on behalf of the plan. It stated that the plaintiffs had established a concrete stake in the lawsuit and therefore had standing to assert all the claims in the action, even though they had not invested in each challenged fund. The court cited decisions supporting the ability of a plan participant with Article III standing to seek relief for the plan as a whole.

Because the defendant had not provided a valid basis for reconsideration, the court did not address the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning two alternative grounds previously raised in support of class certification.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.