Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al. v. Timothy Laurent, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 18-487-cv · judgment December 23, 2019
Before the decision, about 6.1× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Second Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
Section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), includes 11 paragraphs, each authorizing particular types of plaintiffs to pursue distinct types of relief. Section 502(a)(1)(B) permits courts to enforce employee-benefit plan terms only “as written.” CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421, 436 (2011). Section 502(a)(3) permits only the equitable remedies “typically available in premerger equity courts,” Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of Nat. Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, 136 S. Ct. 651, 657 (2016), and an action to “impose personal liability … for a contractual obligation to pay money” is “relief that was not typically available in equity,” Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 210 (2002). In this case, the Second Circuit recognized that plaintiffs, a class of former plan participants, were not entitled to additional benefits under the plan as written. Nevertheless, in conflict with at least five other circuits, the Second Circuit held that the district court could use the equitable authority of § 502(a)(3) to reform plan terms as a purported “preparatory step” to enforcing the reformed plan under § 502(a)(1)(B). By combining parts of each of the two distinct remedial provisions in this fashion, the Second Circuit authorized an award of monetary damages that is not permitted by either provision individually. The question presented is: Whether the Second Circuit improperly combined parts of two separate remedial sections under ERISA, interpreting § 502(a)(3) to permit reformation of a plan solely as a preparatory step to ultimate relief under § 502(a)(1)(B) in the form of money damages.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Miguel A. Estrada
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
For respondent
Leon Dayan
Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C.
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jun 28 2021Petition DENIED.
- Jun 08 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
- Jun 07 2021Supplemental brief of petitioners PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- May 25 2021Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
- Oct 19 2020The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
- Sep 30 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
- Sep 29 2020Reply of petitioners PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 16 2020Brief of respondents Timothy Laurent, et al. in opposition filed.
- Aug 17 2020Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, The American Benefits Council, and The Business Roundtable filed.
- Aug 05 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 16, 2020.
- Aug 04 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 17, 2020 to September 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 10 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 17, 2020)