Larson et al v. Allina Health System et al

Filing 111

ORDER denying Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party 103 , and denying as moot Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply 110 . (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 2/6/2020. (JTJ)

CASE 0:17-cv-03835-SRN-TNL Document 111 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Judy Larson, Janelle Mausolf, and Karen
Reese, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-3835 (SRN/TNL)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE

v.
Allina Health System; the Allina Health
System Board of Directors; the Allina
Health System Retirement Committee; the
Allina Health System Chief Administrative
Officer; the Allina Health System Chief
Human Resources Officer; Clay Ahrens;
John I. Allen; Jennifer Alstad; Gary
Bhojwani; Barbara Butts-Williams; John R.
Church; Laura Gillund; Joseph Goswitz;
Greg Heinemann; David Kuplic; Hugh T.
Nierengarten;
Sahra
Noor;
Brian
Rosenberg; Debbra L. Schoneman; Thomas
S. Schreier, Jr.; Abir Sen; Sally J. Smith;
Darrell Tukua; Penny Wheeler; Duncan
Gallagher; Christine Webster Moore;
Kristyn Mullin; Steve Wallner; John T.
Knight; and John Does 1–20,
Defendants.
Brock J. Specht, Carl F. Engstrom, and Kai H. Richter, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, 4600 IDS
Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Douglas Patrick Needham, Mark
Patrick Kindall, and Robert A. Izard, Jr., Izard Kindall & Raabe, LLP, 29 South Main
Street, Suite 305, West Hartford, CT 06107; Mark K. Gyandoh, Capozzi Adler, P.C., 2933
North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew J. Holly, Nicholas J. Bullard, and Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50
South 6th Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Eric G. Serron and Paul J. Ondrasik,
Jr., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20036, for
Defendants.

CASE 0:17-cv-03835-SRN-TNL Document 111 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 5

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is non-party Shiyang Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae in Support of Neither Party [Doc. No. 103] and Motion for Leave to File
Reply/Surreply [Doc. No. 110]. Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae seeks to
“correct [the] use of [the] class-action device[] so that absentee will see less abuse while
settling[.] (sic)” (See Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae (Amicus Motion) [Doc. No.
103] at 2.) Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Reply, on the other hand, seeks permission to
file a reply brief responding to both parties’ opposition to Huang’s Amicus Motion.1 (Motion
for Leave to File Reply (Reply Br. Motion) [Doc. No. 110].) For the following reasons, the
Court DENIES Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae [Doc. No. 103] and
DENIES AS MOOT Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply [Doc. No. 110].
I.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On August 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the present class-action case against Defendants

for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1009, 1132 (2012). (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at 2.) Generally, Plaintiffs’ claims
consist of allegations that Defendants violated their fiduciary duties while managing
Defendants’ various Retirement Savings Plans. (Id. at 1.) Early in the case, Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (See
Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 28].) Following extensive arguments by the parties, the Court

1

Under this Court’s local rules, the Court must grant permission before a reply brief
may be filed for a nondispositive civil motion. See D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(b)(3).
2

CASE 0:17-cv-03835-SRN-TNL Document 111 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 5

granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. (See Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 71].)
On April 19, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they had agreed to the basic terms
of a settlement that would resolve the matter entirely, and sought a temporary stay of the
proceedings; the Court granted that request, staying the case while the parties drafted a
settlement agreement. (See Stip. to Stay Pending Settlement Approval [Doc. No. 83]; Order
granting Stay [Doc. No. 85]; see also Orders extending Stay [Doc. Nos. 90, 93].)
On October 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlement [Doc. No. 94], which the Court granted. (See Order granting Prelim. Approval
of Settlement [Doc. No. 99].) A fairness hearing is currently scheduled for April 16, 2020
before the undersigned. (See Min. Entry [Doc. No. 99].)
On January 17, 2020, non-party, non-class member Shiyang Huang filed the present
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party. (See Amicus Motion
[Doc. No. 103].) While his motion is less than clear, it appears to the Court that Huang is
arguing that he should be permitted to file his amicus brief for three reasons: (1) Huang is
“flagging” constitutional Article III standing and Due Process concerns for the Court; (2)
Huang has a strong interest in this case in light of his involvement and objections in an entirely
separate case, Schultz v. Edward D. Jones & Co, L.P., No. 4:16-cv-1346–JAR (E.D. Mo.),
affirmed sub. nom., McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., No. 19-2158, 2020 WL
504865, ___ Fed. App’x ___ (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2020), and because very few objectors “could
or would [] properly object” to this settlement; and (3) this case’s similarities to Schultz, and
the Eighth Circuit’s consideration of the appeal in that case, suggest this Court should
3

CASE 0:17-cv-03835-SRN-TNL Document 111 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 5

consider the merits of Huang’s brief. (See Amicus Mot. [Doc. No. 103] at 3.) Plaintiffs and
Defendants oppose Huang’s motion on various grounds, including that it is premature,
unhelpful, violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and that the case Huang was involved in is not similar
enough to warrant his involvement here. (See Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Leave to File
Amicus [Doc. No. 107] at 2–3; Defs.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Leave to File Amicus
[Doc. No. 108] at 1–2.) Huang then filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply seeking permission
to file a reply brief responding to each party’s opposition. (Reply Br. Motion [Doc. No. 110].)
There is no formal rule governing the standard by which to evaluate whether to grant
a motion requesting leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Rather, “[a] determination on a
request to participate as amicus curiae is discretionary, and ‘the court . . . may grant or refuse
leave according as it deems the proffered information timely, useful, or otherwise.’ ” Murphy
v. Piper, No. 16-cv-2623 (DWF/BRT), 2018 WL 2088302, at *11 (D. Minn. 2018) (quoting
Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1055
(D. Minn. 2014)); see also N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 555, 555–556 (1903)
(discussing discretionary standard for permitting amicus filings).
The Court denies Huang’s request to file as amicus curiae. Huang is not a party or a
class member in this case. His only purported “interest” stems from his involvement in an
unrelated ERISA action originally filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, in which he objected to the class settlement and appealed to the Eighth
Circuit when his objection was overruled. (See Notice of Appeal in Schultz v. Edward D.
Jones & Co, L.P., No. 4:16-cv-1346–JAR (E.D. Mo.) [Doc. No. 114].) The Eighth Circuit
has since rejected Huang’s appeal and affirmed the approval of the Schultz settlement, which
4

CASE 0:17-cv-03835-SRN-TNL Document 111 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 5

renders moot any suggestion that this Court stay the case pending resolution of the Schultz
case. See McDonald, 2020 WL 504865, at *1 (rejecting Huang’s appeal and affirming district
court certification of settlement class, approval of settlement, and award of attorneys’ fees
and case contribution awards). Additionally, Huang’s contentions that there are standing
issues here are meritless; the Court has already held that Plaintiffs have standing. (See Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 71] at 9–12.) Finally, Huang
is incorrect that “few objectors” would or will object; at least two objections to the settlement
have already been filed. (See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 101 (letter objection), 102 (letter objection).)
Ultimately, the Court does not consider Huang’s proposed involvement to be timely,
useful, or otherwise helpful to the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies Huang’s motion to
file an amicus brief [Doc. No. 103] and denies as moot Huang’s motion to file a reply brief
[Doc. No. 110].
II.

CONCLUSION
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Shiyang Huang’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae in
Support of Neither Party [Doc. No. 103] is DENIED, and his Motion for Leave to File
Reply/Surreply [Doc. No. 110] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

5