Reichert v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 47

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/27/2022. (jdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIAN REICHERT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 21-cv-06213-JD
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 41
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

The motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 41, is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant

14

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing set for April 28, 2022, is vacated. The parties’ familiarity

15

with the record is assumed, and the motion is denied.

16

Plaintiffs allege that defendants Juniper Networks and affiliated entities (Juniper)

17

mismanaged a defined contribution plan, namely an employee 401(k) plan, by paying

18

unreasonably high fees for plan services, choosing high-priced investments over options with

19

lower costs and better returns, not monitoring the plan adequately, and not disclosing plan

20

information to participants. Dkt. No. 38 (Am. Compl.). Plaintiffs say this conduct violated

21

Juniper’s fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

22

(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.

23

Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the ERISA claims. The amended complaint provides a

24

wealth of factual allegations about the management of the plan, including data that compares

25

Juniper’s service fees and investment choices to other options. These facts are more than enough

26

to plausibly allege violations of Juniper’s duty of prudence, see Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.,

27

142 S.Ct. 737, 742 (2022), Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. 523, 530 (2015), and allow the Court

28

“‘to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”

1

Escobar-Lopez v. City of Daly City, 527 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting

2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).1
To be sure, Juniper disputes the allegations in the complaint, and attached almost 500

3
4

pages of exhibits to that effect with the motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 41-1. Juniper did not ask

5

for judicial notice or otherwise explain why the Court should take into account, for a Rule 12(b)(6)

6

motion, exhibits that are well beyond the amended complaint. In any event, the Court declines to

7

consider them at this stage of the case. See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988,

8

999-1001 (9th Cir. 2018). Juniper will have ample opportunity at trial or other merits proceedings

9

to make its case.
Plaintiffs have Article III standing for the ERISA claims. They alleged personal losses as

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

plan participants, and have sued for relief on behalf of the plan as a whole under ERISA Section

12

502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). This is enough to demonstrate standing. See Harris v. Amgen,

13

Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 732-33 (9th Cir. 2009); L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Econ.

14

Opportunity Comm’n of Nassau Cnty., Inc., 710 F.3d 57, 67 n.5 (2d Cir. 2013) (standing

15

established under Section 502(a)(2) for claims alleging injuries to the plan); Braden v. Wal-Mart

16

Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 593 (8th Cir. 2009) (same).
As a closing note, plaintiffs’ opposition brief exceeded the page limits in the Court’s

17
18

standing order by a substantial amount. All parties and counsel are advised that future filings that

19

do not conform to the standing orders will be summarily terminated and not considered by the

20

Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: April 27, 2022

23
24
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

1

Our circuit recently followed Hughes and Tibble to sustain complaints in similar ERISA cases.
See Kong v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 20-56415, 2022 WL 1125667, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2022)
(unpublished); Davis v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 21-15867, 2022 WL 1055557, at *1 (9th Cir.
Apr. 8, 2022) (unpublished). Although unpublished, these memorandum decisions are instructive.
2