- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harmon v. Shell Oil Co.
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court has referred all pretrial matters in this case to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(i)(A)-(B). Dkt. 199. Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation on September 6, 2023, recommending the court grant the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Dkts. 159, 266. Judge Edison also filed a memorandum and recommendation on November 9, 2023, recommending the court deny the parties' motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 202, 207, 270.
On September 20, 2023, the defendants filed objections to Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation on class certification. Dkt. 267. On December 8, 2023, the plaintiffs and defendants objected to Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation on their summary-judgment motions. Dkts. 273, 274.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The court has carefully considered the memorandum and recommendations, the objections, the pleadings, and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendations, Dkts. 266, 270, and adopts them as the opinions of the court. It is therefore ordered that:
In reaching his decision, Judge Edison cited the plaintiffs' expert reports to support the proposition that the Plan's decision to retain Tier III during most of the class period potentially affected participants who did not invest in Tier III by causing them to incur higher fees in their Tier I and Tier II investments. The defendants complain that Judge Edison should not have considered this expert testimony because the reports “were not part of the class[-]certification record.” Dkt. 267 at 3. This argument is without merit. The expert reports at issue are part of the court's record and properly considered by Judge Edison. But even if the court disregards Judge Edison's citations to those expert reports, the class-certification record is replete with other evidence that makes the same point. See, e.g., Dkt. 15917 at 9.
1. Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation addressing class certification, Dkt. 266, is approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court. 2. The court grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Dkt. 159, and certifies the following classes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(A): 3 Class 1 (Counts I, II, and VIII): All participants and beneficiaries of the Shell Provident Fund 401(k) Plan from January 21, 2014, through the date of judgment, excluding the defendants. 4 Class 2 (Count III): All participants and beneficiaries of the Shell Provident Fund 401(k) Plan who utilized the Plan's managed account services from January 21, 2014, through the date of judgment, excluding the defendants. 3. The court appoints David Lawrence as class representative for Class 1 and David Lawrence and Brian Coble as class representatives for Class 2. The court appoints the plaintiffs' counsel from Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP as class counsel for both classes. 4. Judge Edison's memorandum and recommendation addressing the competing summary-judgment motions, Dkt. 270, is approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court. 5. The court denies the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 202, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 207.
Alert