Patterson v. Morgan Stanley
Filing 109
OPINION AND ORDER re: 92 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. filed by Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Retirement Plan Investment Committee, Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC. Contrary t o Plaintiffs' claims, ERISA does not require clairvoyance on the part of plan fiduciaries, nor does it countenance opportunistic Monday-morning quarter-backing on the part of lawyers and plan participants who, with the benefit of hindsight, have zeroed in on the underperformance of certain investment options. More is required, and Plaintiffs come nowhere close to alleging such a case in their Complaint. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs lack standing as to the Non-Selected Funds, and because their Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under ERISA as to the Selected Funds, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at document number 92 and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan Sitting By Designation on 10/7/2019) (kgo) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
