Thomson v. Russell Investment Management LLC et al

Filing 195

ORDER Granting 192 Stipulation. Based on the foregoing stipulation regarding class certification, the court finds that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(l) are satisfied, and hereby certifies the following class : All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time from August 1, 2017 through December 17, 2021, excluding any employees of Caesars with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions. Plaintiffs' motions to certify class [ECF No. 179 ] and [ECF No. 187 ] are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 8/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Paul S. Padda
NV Bar No. 10417
PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Paul J. Lukas, MN Bar No. 22084X*
[e-mail]
Brock J. Specht, MN Bar No. 0388343*
[e-mail]
Benjamin J. Bauer, MN Bar No. 0398853*
[e-mail]
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
*admitted pro hac vice

14
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DANNY WANEK, JUAN DUARTE, and
RICK RUBERTON, as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Caesars Entertainment
Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan,
Plaintiffs
v.
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST
COMPANY, CAESARS HOLDINGS, INC.,
THE PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
and THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE.
Defendants

Case No. 2:21-cv-00961-CDS-BNW
STIPULATION AND ORDER
ACCEPTING STIPULATION
REGARDING CLASS
CERTIFICATION
[ECF No. 192]

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Danny Wanek, Juan Duarte, and Rick Ruberton, (“Plaintiffs”) have

2

filed a Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 175) on behalf of the Caesars Entertainment

3

Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan (“Plan”) against Defendants Russell Investments

4

Trust Company (“Russell”), Caesars Holdings, Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the

5

401(k) Plan Committee (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), alleging class action

6

claims under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”);

7
8
9

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their renewed Motion for Class Certification on August 9, 2024
(ECF No. 187); and
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred regarding streamlining the litigation for

10

purposes of the efficient management of the litigation and agree to stipulate to the certification of

11

the class, as described below;

12
13

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S
APPROVAL, AS FOLLOWS:
The following class (“Class”) shall be certified:

14

1.

15

All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time from August 1,
2017 through December 17, 2021, excluding any employees of Caesars
with responsibility for the Plan’s investment or administrative functions.

16
17
18
19

2.

The class is numerous, as the Plan had tens of thousands of participants during the

class period who were invested in the Russell Funds.
3.

There are common issues respecting the claims alleged in the Fifth Amended

20

Complaint relating to (among other things): (a) which Defendants served as Plan fiduciaries; (b)

21

whether the Plan’s fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1104; and

22

(c) the relief, if any, that may be appropriate in this case.

23

4.

The alleged claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the alleged claims of the other class

24

members as the Plaintiffs participated in the Plan during the class period and they allege they

25

suffered the same or similar injury as other class members based on Defendants’ alleged conduct.

26
27

5.

Plaintiffs declare that they are committed to fairly, adequately, and vigorously

representing and protecting the interests of the members of the Class, and the parties and counsel

28
2

1

are not currently aware of any conflicts that might compromise the Plaintiffs’ interests in

2

pursuing the claims on behalf of the Class. Plaintiffs also have retained competent and

3

experienced class counsel who are adequate to represent the class (i.e., Nichols Kaster, PLLP and

4

Paul Padda Law, PLLC). See Moreno v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., 2017 WL

5

3868803, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017) (“Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced litigators who

6

serve as class counsel in ERISA actions involving defined-contribution plans”).

7

6.

Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) because

8

adjudications with respect to the common issues identified in Paragraph 2 as to individual class

9

members, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other persons not

10

parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to

11

protect their interests relating to those issues.

12

7.

Class certification has been granted in several other ERISA cases involving defined

13

contribution plans, including numerous cases in this Circuit. See, e.g., Mattson v. Milliman, Inc.,

14

No. 22-0037-TSZ, ECF No. 106 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2023); Lauderdale v. NFP Retirement, Inc.,

15

2022 WL 1599916 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022); Baird v. Blackrock Inst. Tr. Co., N.A., 2020 WL

16

7389772, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020); Hurtado v. Rainbow Disposal Co., 2019 WL 1771797,

17

at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019); Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., L.P., 2017 WL

18

2655678 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2017); In re Northrop Grumman Corp. ERISA Litig., 2011 WL

19

3505264 (C.D Cal. Mar. 29, 2011); Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 2009 WL 6764541, at *2–4 (C.D. Cal.

20

June 30, 2009); Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 102 (N.D. Cal. 2008); In re: Syncor ERISA

21

Litig., 227 F.R.D. 338 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

22

8.

Similar stipulations regarding class certification also have been approved in other

23

ERISA cases involving defined contribution plans. See, e.g., Mills v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., No.

24

2:22-cv-01813, ECF No. 127 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2023); Williams v. Centerra Group, LLC., No.

25

1:20-cv-04220-SAL, ECF 175 (D.S.C. June 20, 2023); Berry v. FirstGroup America, Inc., No.

26

1:18-cv-00326, Dkt. No. 92 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 8, 2022); Turner v. Schneider Elec. Holdings, Inc.,

27

No. 1:20-cv-11006, Dkt. No. 72 (D. Mass. Aug. 27, 2021); Reetz v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No.

28

5:18-cv-00075, Dkt. No. 97 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2020); Moitoso v. FMR LLC, No. 1:18-cv-12122,
3

1

Dkt. No. 83 (D. Mass. May 7, 2019); Velazquez v. Mass. Fin. Srvs. LLC, No. 1:17-cv-11249, Dkt.

2

No. 94 (D. Mass. June 25, 2019); Pledger v. Reliance Tr. Co., No. 1:15-cv-4444, Dkt. No.

3

101 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2017).

4

9.

Nothing in this Stipulation prejudices any party’s ability to seek relief under Rule

5

23(c)(1)(C) at any time “before final judgment,” based on a good faith belief in a change in

6

circumstances from the present circumstances that are known or reasonably should be known by

7

any party, that the Class no longer satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) or (b)(1) or restricts

8

the Court’s authority to “alter[] or amend[]” an order granting class certification at any time

9

“before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(C). In addition, this Stipulation is without

10

prejudice to any party’s ability to challenge class certification or seek any other form of relief if

11

Plaintiffs amend their Fifth Amended Complaint. Such relief may include, without

12

limitation, decertification, modification of the Class definition, or certification of sub-classes.

13

Further, this provision does not preclude the parties from jointly proposing a modified Class

14

definition in connection with any proposed settlement.

15

10.

This Stipulation is solely for the purpose of resolving class certification in this action

16

and, except as expressly provided herein, is without prejudice to any party’s legal and

17

equitable rights and defenses in this action.

18
19
20

*

*

*

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court approve this Stipulation
and Order and certify the proposed Class.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Dated: August 22, 2024

Dated: August 22, 2024

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
/s/ Benjamin J. Bauer
Paul J. Lukas, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Brock J. Specht, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Benjamin J. Bauer, Esq. (admitted pro hac
vice)
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]

MAYER BROWN LLP
/s/ D. Matthew Moscon
D. Matthew Moscon (admitted pro hac vice)
201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
Paul S. Padda, Esq.
4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

MAYER BROWN LLP
Nancy G. Ross (admitted pro hac vice)
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
Patrick H. Hicks, Esq. Bar. No. 004632
Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. Bar No. 13477
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5937
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Attorneys for Defendant Caesars Holdings,
Inc., the Plan Investment Committee, and the
401(k) Plan Committee
MILBANK LLP
/s/ Robert C. Hora
Sean M. Murphy, Esq. (admitted pro hac
vice)
Robert C. Hora, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: [phone]
PARSONS, BEHLE & LATIMER
Rew R. Goodenow, Esq. NSBN 3722
Michael R. Kealy, Esq. NSBN 971
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 750
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Russell Investments
Trust Company

5