SANTOMENNO et al v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 160

ORDER DENYING Defendants Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Investment Management, LLC, and Transamerica Asset Management, Inc.s Motion to Amend the Courts February 19, 2013 Order in Order to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 140 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc) Modified on 4/25/2013 .(lc). Modified on 4/25/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JACLYN SANTOMENNO; KAREN
POLEY; BARBARA POLEY,

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
16

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; TRANSAMERICA
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC;
TRANSAMERICA ASSET
MANAGEMENT INC.,

17
Defendants.
18
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-02782 DDP (MANx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO AMEND
[Dkt. No. 140]

19
20

Presently before the court is Defendants Transamerica Life

21

Insurance Company, Transamerica Investment Management, LLC, and

22

Transamerica Asset Management, Inc.’s Motion to Amend the Court’s

23

February 19, 2013 Order in Order to Certify for Interlocutory

24

Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

25

parties’ submissions and heard oral argument, the court adopts the

26

following order.

27
28

Having considered the

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an
order for interlocutory appeal where the order involves a

1

“controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial

2

ground for difference of opinion” and where “an immediate appeal

3

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of

4

the litigation.”

5

which “could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the

6

district court.”

7

1026 (9th Cir. 1982).

8

controlling precedent requires that the interlocutory appeal have a

9

final, dispositive effect on the litigation, only that it ‘may

A controlling question is one the resolution of

In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020,
“[N]either § 1292(b)'s literal text nor

10

materially advance’ the litigation.”

11

(Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. 2011)(quoting 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1292(b)).

Reese v. BP Exploration

13

In its Order denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

14

the court found that Defendants were fiduciaries with respect to

15

their fees for several independent reasons.

16

that, given the facts as pleaded in the Complaint, Defendants’

17

fiduciary duties attached at the time they negotiated their fees,

18

and therefore they were fiduciaries with respect to those fees.

19

Second, the court found that by retaining the right to modify their

20

fees and the investment line-up, Defendants retained sufficient

21

discretion over their fees to make them fiduciaries with respect to

22

those fees.

23

First, the court found

Here, Defendants seek to certify the question, “[w]hether a

24

service provider is a fiduciary with respect to fees charged to an

25

ERISA plan where the plan’s named fiduciary agreed to the fees

26

before the service provider charged and collected them.”

27

1.)

28

of the court’s findings regarding Defendants’ fiduciary status.

(Mot. at

As Defendants concede, this question applies only to the first

2

1

Defendants concede that even if the Court of Appeals were to

2

reverse this court on the first theory of fiduciary duty,

3

Plaintiffs would be able to proceed on the narrower theory.

4

Nonetheless, Defendants argue that it is a controlling question

5

because “such narrower assertions of fiduciary status will involve

6

a host of plan-specific factual issues requiring discovery and

7

separate factfinding.”

8
9

(Reply at 7.)

The court notes that its “broader” theory of Defendants’
fiduciary status is not as broad as Defendants make out; it is

10

based on the specific allegations in the Complaint. These

11

allegations are known to the parties and need not be restated.

12

court also believes it worth restating that nothing in the February

13

19 Order is intended to imply that Defendants are precluded from

14

charging fees that are consistent with those charged by service

15

providers in general.

16

fees and profits for the services that it provides to the plans,

17

but as a fiduciary TLIC is accountable for the reasonableness of

18

those fees.”).

19

The

Order at 13 (“TLIC is entitled to reasonable

In short, whether Defendants’ fiduciary duty is considered to

20

attach at the time of the negotiations of the contracts or by

21

virtue of the discretion retained in the contract, preparation for

22

certification motions will require a largely similar scope of

23

discovery.

24

would materially advance the litigation.

Thus, it does not appear that certifying the question

25

While it may be the case that a substantial ground for

26

difference of opinion exists with respect to certain aspects of

27

this court’s Order denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss,

28

it is not clear that resolving the question posed by the Defendants
3

1

would materially advance the litigation. The court therefore DENIES

2

the Motion to Amend.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: April 25, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4