No. 24-1030

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. v. Michael D. Johnson, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-03-28
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
CVSGAmici (2)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (4) Experienced Counsel
Tags: benchmark-comparison erisa fiduciary-duty investment-prudence judicial-standard retirement-plan
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA Securities ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2026-01-16 (distributed 4 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether pleading an ERISA claim requires allegations showing that a performance benchmark is a sound basis for comparison for an investment

Question Presented (from Petition)

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), retirement plan fiduciaries have a duty to remove imprudent investments from their plan within a reasonable time. Hughes v. Nw. Univ. , 595 U.S. 170, 176 (2022). In deciding whether a complaint adequately pleads an claim, “courts must give due regard to the range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.” Id. at 177. The question presented is: Whether pleading an claim under ERISA, based on how the investment’s returns compared to some performance benchmark, requires allegations showing that the benchmark is a sound basis for comparison for that investment.

Docket Entries

2026-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2025-12-23
Supplemental brief of petitioners Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-12-23
Supplemental brief of respondents Michael D. Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-12-23
Supplemental Brief of Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. submitted.
2025-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-23
Supplemental Brief of Michael D. Johnson, et al. submitted.
2025-12-09
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2025-06-30
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration of this petition.
2025-06-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
2025-06-09
Reply of petitioners Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-06-09
Reply of Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. submitted.
2025-05-21
2025-05-21
2025-05-21
Brief of Michael D. Johnson, et al. in opposition submitted.
2025-05-21
Amicus brief of Encore Fiduciary submitted.
2025-04-21
Response Requested. (Due May 21, 2025)
2025-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/2/2025.
2025-04-08
Waiver of right of respondent Michael D. Johnson, et al. to respond filed.
2025-03-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2025)

Attorneys

Encore Fiduciary
Jed Wolf GlicksteinKaplan & Grady LLC, Amicus
Jed Wolf GlicksteinKaplan & Grady LLC, Amicus
Jed Wolf GlicksteinKaplan & Grady LLC, Amicus
Michael D. Johnson, et al.
Sean Edward SoyarsSchlichter Bogard LLC, Respondent
Sean Edward SoyarsSchlichter Bogard LLC, Respondent
Sean Edward SoyarsSchlichter Bogard LLC, Respondent
Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al.
Michael Edward Kenneally Jr.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Petitioner
Michael Edward Kenneally Jr.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Petitioner
Michael Edward Kenneally Jr.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Amicus
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Amicus
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Amicus