United States Sixth Circuit

In an action raising claims under 29 U.S.C. sections 1132(a)(2) and 1132(a)(3) of ERISA, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) as defendant did not overcome the presumption that filing one plan document establishes only a single ERISA plan, two employers each maintain a single ERISA group health plan with multiple benefit options; 2) because plaintiffs' alleged injury was too speculative to establish constitutional standing, dismissal of claims asserted pursuant to section 1132(a)(2) was proper; but 3) plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue under section 1132(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duty.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/20/2007
• Published 09/20/2007

Judges

• Before: COLE and GILMAN, Circuit Judges;  MARBLEY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Stephen F. Wasinger, Stephen F. Wasinger PLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.  Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Stephen F. Wasinger, Stephen F. Wasinger PLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, John H. Eggertsen, Eggertsen & Associates, Pittsfield Township, Michigan, for Appellants.  Catherine E. Stetson, Evan Miller, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., Robert P. Hurlbert, Dickinson Wright, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, K. Scott Hamilton, Dickinson Wright, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.