Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: ERISA
  • Date Filed: June 10, 2019
  • Case #: 18-1116
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: 909 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2018)
  • Full Text Opinion

“Whether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113(2), which runs from “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation,” bars suit where all of the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.”

Petitioners seek to enforce the three-year statute of limitation in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to bar Respondent from bringing a class action suit regarding alleged misallocation of retirement funds. 29 U.S.C. 1113(2). Respondent was employed for two years, upon which time he participated in two retirement plans offered by Petitioners. After leaving his employment, Petitioner received numerous emails which contained links to “important documents” regarding the retirement plans. Respondent clicked on the links and browsed the related webpages hundreds of times. Whether information provided by Petitioners constituted “constructive” or “actual” knowledge is the issue; ERISA requires actual knowledge for the statute of limitations to begin. The district court granted summary judgment for Petitioners, holding that Respondent had actual knowledge. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the information provided does not establish that Respondent read the documents and therefore cannot constitute actual knowledge. Petitioners note that the Sixth Circuit decision in Brown v. Owens directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision here and thus creates an “intolerable conflict.” 622 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2010). Because such cases arise with great frequency, Petitioner argues the Court should resolve the certainly different outcomes that would be based solely on where a claimant files suit and should use this opportunity to bring uniformity and resolution to the conflict.

Advanced Search

Back to Top