Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

THE DEPOT, INC. v. CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., CV 16-74-M-DLC. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Montana Number: infdco20161222c53 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER DANA L. CHRISTENSEN , Chief District Judge . Currently before the Court is the joint motion to dismiss of Defendants Caring for Montanans, Inc. ("CFM") and Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"). In considering this motion, the Court has determined that additional briefing from both parties is necessary. Plaintiffs have brought a civil action against Defendants under BRISA 502(a)(2). Plaintiffs' claim may proceed under this theory only if they have plausibly alleged that Defendan
More

ORDER

Currently before the Court is the joint motion to dismiss of Defendants Caring for Montanans, Inc. ("CFM") and Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC"). In considering this motion, the Court has determined that additional briefing from both parties is necessary.

Plaintiffs have brought a civil action against Defendants under BRISA § 502(a)(2). Plaintiffs' claim may proceed under this theory only if they have plausibly alleged that Defendants are fiduciaries. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are fiduciaries for two reasons: (1) Defendants "exercise[d] any authority or control respecting management or disposition of [plan] assets"; and (2) Defendants "exercise[d] discretionary authority or discretionary control regarding management of [the] plan[.]" 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). The parties have thoroughly and adequately briefed the Court regarding the first issue, involving Defendants' conduct with respect to plan assets.

However, the parties have not sufficiently addressed whether Defendants "exercise[d] discretionary authority or discretionary control regarding management of [the] plan." Id. Defendants assert that this theory is inapplicable but present no legal argument on the issue. The Complaint contains a legal conclusion stating that the theory applies, and Plaintiffs argue in their response brief—in a two-sentence footnote—that it applies. Neither party presents any legal authority regarding the applicability or inapplicability of the theory to the facts alleged.

Although the Defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing dismissal is warranted, the Plaintiff bears its own burden of alleging facts rather than legal conclusions. Neither party has yet met its burden, and the Court now orders the parties to file supplementary briefings.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall file supplementary briefs in support of their Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 8, 13), not to exceed 2,000 words, on or before January 4, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file a response brief, not to exceed 2,000 words, within 14 days of the filing of Defendants' supplementary brief. No reply brief may be filed.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer