Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

10-4372 - The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
10-4372 - The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
December 17, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER for Disqualification and for Reassignment. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 12/17/10. (kll)
March 27, 2012
PDF | More
rities lending program (the Program) from any time in the period January 1, 2006 to the present who suffered losses due to the Program's purchase and maintenance of high risk, long-term securities. 3. The parties shall negotiate the content of tMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED as to Count I (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), Count II (Breach of Contract), and Count III (Violation of Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act Minn. Stat. ยง 325F.69) of Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1). 2. The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All participants in Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s secuhe class notice. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice to the Court. If the parties are unable to agree on the content of the notice, the parties shall each submit a proposed notice, together with briefing not to exceed ten (10) pages per side, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. 4. The Court appoints the City of Farmington Hill Employees Retirement System as class representative. 5. Having considered the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appoints Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, the Miller Law Firm, P.C., VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., and Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, as class counsel.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/27/2012. (BJS)
May 25, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER REGARDING CLASS NOTICE (see Order for details)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 05/25/2012. (rlb)
September 24, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 212 Motion for clarification. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 9/21/12. (RLR)
October 22, 2012
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 238 Motion Without Prejudice. (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/22/2012. (rlb)
November 19, 2012
PDF | More
ORDER re 260 Objection To Discovery Ruling, filed by The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System. 1. Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 24, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 260) is OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 24, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 235) is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/19/2012. (BJS)
September 17, 2013
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Decertify the Class (Doc. No. 322) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion for decertification is GRANTED with respect to the sixteen ERISA Plaintiffs. As such, the following entities are excluded from the Class: (1) Twin City Hospital Workers Pension Fund; (2) The Schwan Food Company Retirement Savings Plan; (3) Longview Fibre Company; (4) ABC Retirement Plan for Cooperatives; (5) Alliant Energy Master Retirement Trust Plan; (6) Bemis Company, Inc. Master Pension Trust; (7) ITT Corporation Employee Benefits Trust; (8) ITT Corporation ISP for Salaried Employees; (9) Les Schwab Profit Sharing Retirement Trust; (10) MDU Resources Group Inc. Master Trust; (11) Omaha Construction Industry Plans; (12) Presbyterian Healthcare Services; (13) Presbyterian Healthcare Services Employees Pension Plan; (14) Smithfield Foods, Inc. Master Trust; (15) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Pension Trust Fund; and (16) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Defined Contribution Fund. b. As stipulated by the parties, the following seven entities are also excluded from the class: (1) IHC Foundation Inc.; (2) Mid-West Life Insurance Co.; (3) The Chesapeake Life Insurance Co.; (4) The Mega Life & Health Insurance Co.; (5) United Group Reinsurance, Inc.; (6) SIT/Kim Global Fund LLC International; and (7) SIT/Kim International Fund LLC International. c. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Wells Fargo's Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 309) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Wells Fargo's affirmative defenses numbered 6, 7, 15, 28, 43, and 48 are hereby DISMISSED. b. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 3. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 315) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty, MCFA, DTPA, and UTPA claims. b. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent Wells Fargo seeks judgment as to the claims of the sixteen ERISA Plaintiffs. c. The motion is GRANTED with respect to CFHERS' claim for civil theft. As such, Wells Fargo is entitled to judgment as to Count VI of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 277). 4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Defendant's Proposed Experts (Doc. No. 302) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/17/2013. (BJS)
January 14, 2014
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15 and to Add an Additional Class Representative Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 387) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Court hereby CERTIFIES a SUBCLASS of the ERISA plans that participated in Wells Fargo's securities lending program. The following entities shall be included in the subclass: (1) Twin City Hospital Workers Pension Fund; (2) The Schwan Food Company Retirement Savings Plan; (3) Longview Fibre Company; (4) ABC Retirement Plan for Cooperatives; (5) Alliant Energy Master Retirement Trust Plan; (6) Bemis Company, Inc. Master Pension Trust; (7) ITT Corporation Employee Benefits Trust; (8) ITT Corporation ISP for Salaried Employees; (9) Les Schwab Profit Sharing Retirement Trust; (10) MDU Resources Group Inc. Master Trust; (11) Omaha Construction Industry Plans; (12) Presbyterian Healthcare Services; (13) Presbyterian Healthcare Services Employees Pension Plan; (14) Smithfield Foods, Inc. Master Trust; (15) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Pension Trust Fund; (16) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Defined Contribution Fund; (17) Arizona State Carpenters Defined Contribution Fund; (18) Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund; (19) Construction Industry & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust; (20) Construction Industry & Laborers Pension Trust; (21) New Mexico Electricians' Retirement Benefit Fund; (22) New Mexico Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Trust Fund; (23) New Mexico Pipe Trades Pension Fund Plan B; (24) Operating Engineers' Local 428 Defined Contribution Fund; (25) Operating Engineers' Local 428 Pension Fund; (26) Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Trust Fund; (27) Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund; (28) Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Plan; (29) Denver Area Meat Cutter and Employers Pension Plan; and (30) Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions & Employers Pension Plan. b. The following entities are hereby APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES of the ERISA subclass: (1) The Board of Trustees of the Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund; and (2) The Arizona State Carpenters Defined Contribution Trust Fund. c. The claims of the ERISA subclass in this action shall be limited to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 402): Breach of Fiduciary Duty. 2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Reconsideration on Decertification of the Separately Managed Accounts (Doc. No. 417) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/14/2014. (BJS)
April 3, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Non-Wells Fargo Securities Lending Programs (Doc. No. 457) is GRANTED as follows: a. The Court concludes that such evidence is presumptively inadmissible pursuant to Article 4 as well as Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on foundational grounds. Moreover, consistent with the Court's ruling in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Doc. No. 485 at 4 (D. Minn. June 14, 2013), the Court finds specifically that the evidence of Non-Wells Fargo securities lending programs does not survive a Rule 403 analysis. b. Absent further order of the Court, the Court concludes that such evidence has no direct or probative relationship to Wells Fargo's Securities Lending Program ("SLP"). (See Order for additional Motion in Limine rulings.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/3/2014. (BJS)
August 18, 2014
PDF | More
FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT. 1. The Court, for purposes of this Final Order and Judgment (the "Judgment") adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement, and incorporates them herein by reference as if fully set forth. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, and all matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all of the Settling Parties and each of the Class Members. 3. The Notice, the publication of Notice on a dedicated website and the notice methodology implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Court's orders: (i) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons within the definition of the Class; (ii) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action, of the effect of the Settlement Agreement, including releases, of their right to object to the proposed Settlement, of their right to participate in the Settlement, and of their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (iii) were reasonable and constituted due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Rules of the Court and any other applicable law. (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/18/2014. (BJS)