����������

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KAITY RUILOVA and EILEEN BRANNIGAN, Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL AND TAX EXEMPT AFFILIATES TAX SHELTERED ANNUITY PLAN        No. 3:22-cv-00111-MPS

                            Plaintiffs,

                                v.

YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YALE-NEW
HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE SYSTEM
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW
HAVEN HEALTH SERVICE CORP. AND
SYSTEM AFFILIATES, THE RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW HAVEN
HEALTH SERVICES CORP. AND SYSTEM
AFFILLIATES; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose
Names Are Currently Unknown,

                       Defendants
 

RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs Kaity Ruilova and Eileen Brannigan (“Plaintiffs”), on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action against Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., The Board of Trustees of Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., The System Investment Committee of Yale New Haven Health Service Corporation and System Affiliates, The Retirement Committee of Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation and System Affiliates, and Does No. 1-20 (“Defendants“). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., in their administration of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and Tax Exempt Affiliates Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan (the “Plan”), a 403(b) defined contribution retirement plan. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants imprudently offered and retained certain investments in the Plan, overpaid for the Plan’s recordkeeping and administrative fees, offered an overly expensive menu of investment options to Plan participants, and violated their duty of loyalty to the Plan. Plaintiffs also allege that certain Defendants failed to monitor the fiduciary conduct of other Defendants or were complicit in the fiduciary breaches of other Defendants. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, I grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims related to the Plan’s investment lineup, the Plan’s total cost, and the duty of loyalty. I also dismiss Count I against certain Defendants, some of the derivative claims, and all of the alternative claims. I deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the claim alleging that the Plan incurred excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and the related failure-to-monitor claims.