Adedipe v. US Bank National Association et al

Filing 145

ORDER: Defendant Nuveen's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Abrams [No. 13-cv-2944, ECF No. (61)] is DENIED AS MOOT. U.S. Bank Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Abrams [No. 13-cv-2944, ECF No. (67)] is DENIED AS MOOT. Defen dant Nuveen's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Adedipe [No. 13-cv-2687, ECF No. (60)] is DENIED AS MOOT. U.S. Bank Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Adedipe [No. 13-cv-2687, ECF No. (68)] is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on September 18, 2014. Associated Cases: 0:13-cv-02687-JNE-JJK, 0:13-cv-02944-JNE-JJK(CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Adetayo Adedipe et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 13-cv-2687 (JNE/JJK)
ORDER

v.
U.S. Bank, National Association et al.,
Defendants.

Shelly Abrams et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 13-cv-2944 (JNE/JJK)
ORDER

v.
U.S. Bank, National Association et al.,
Defendants.

These two putative class actions were filed within one month of each other in the fall of
2013 by participants in U.S. Bancorp’s pension plan (hereinafter, the “Plan”). In the two
Complaints, the participants alleged that the Plan fiduciaries’ policies and practices for investing
the Plan’s assets violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and caused
the Plan to suffer large losses.
Defendant Nuveen Asset Management LLC and the rest of the Defendants – collectively
referred to as the “U.S. Bank Defendants” – each filed a motion to dismiss in both the Adedipe
and Abrams cases. No. 13-cv-2687, ECF Nos. 60, 68; No. 13-cv-2944, ECF Nos. 61, 67. While
those motions were pending, the two cases were consolidated and the named plaintiffs and cocounsel from Adedipe were appointed as interim lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, respectively.

1

Order of March 4, 2014, ECF No. 88. Those Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint in Adedipe, No. 13-cv-2687, ECF No. 92, which “supersedes” the two
original Complaints and renders them “without legal effect.” In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209
F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000).
Since the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, the Defendants have
filed new motions targeting that new pleading. Currently pending before the Court are
Defendant Nuveen’s motion to dismiss, No. 13-cv-2687, ECF No. 96, and the U.S. Bank
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for partial summary judgment, No. 13-cv-2687, ECF No. 102.
Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d), 13-cv-2687, ECF No. 113.
As the Defendants have not withdrawn the motions to dismiss directed at the original
Complaints in Adedipe and Abrams, they are now denied as moot.

Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant Nuveen’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Abrams [No. 13-cv-2944, ECF
No. 61] is DENIED AS MOOT.
2. U.S. Bank Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Abrams [No. 13-cv-2944,
ECF No. 67] is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Defendant Nuveen’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Adedipe [No. 13-cv-2687, ECF
No. 60] is DENIED AS MOOT.

2

4. U.S. Bank Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Adedipe [No. 13-cv-2687,
ECF No. 68] is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: September 18, 2014

s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

3