Several other district courts have found that differences in damages is of "little consequence to the typicality determination when the common issue of liability is shared". In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 230 F.R.D. 61, 78 (D. Mass. 2005) (quoting In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 202 F.R.D. 12, 28 (D.D.C. 2001)); see also Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-CV-6284 (KBF), 2018 WL 840364, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018) (holding that each named plaintiff is asserting a claim on behalf of the Plans and that evidence of defendants' management would be the same for all). Plaintiffs here, just as in Sacerdote, assert that all of their claims relate to defendants' alleged imprudent management of the Plan.
The interests of all Plan participants are aligned because the named Plaintiffs have similar legal and financial interests in this action as the proposed class members. (ECF No. 13 (citing Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 2018 WL 840364, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018)). Plaintiff further submits declarations of each Plaintiff confirming their understanding of their duties to take all necessary steps to protect the interests of the Class.
In Sacerdote v. New York University, for instance, the court determined that the “core questions” were “common to all participants: whether defendant breached its fiduciary duties by taking actions or failing to take actions that resulted in improperly high fees, and whether certain investment options were properly included.” No. 16-CV-6284 (KBF), 2018 WL 840364, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018). Likewise, in Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., the court held that “[t]he claims of the proposed class turn[ed] on the ‘common contention'” that breaches of fiduciary duty caused “high fees, higher-cost share classes . . . where identical lower-cost options were available, and the continued offering of underperforming funds, all claims that are ‘capable of classwide resolution.'” 2019 WL 275827, at *5 (appeal pending) (citing Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350)).
; see also Reply at 5. Second, Plaintiffs seek a determination on whether Defendants breached fiduciary duties, which is of legal interest to all Plan participants. See Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-6284, 2018 WL 840364, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018) (“If, in fact, plaintiffs are correct that the inclusion of these funds was a breach of the duty of prudence, then no plan participant would have a legal interest in continuing to invest in a plan that was adjudged imprudent.”).
The answers to the common questions presented here-whether Defendants are fiduciaries; whether they breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Plan to pay excessive record-keeping fees or caused a prohibited transaction; whether the Plan suffered losses from those breaches; how to calculate the Plan's losses-resolve issues central to the validity of the claims in this case. See Vellali v. Yale Univ., 333 F.R.D. 10, 16 (D. Conn. 2019); Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-CV-06284, 2018 WL 840364, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018); Leber v. Citigroup 401(k) Plan Inv. Comm., 323 F.R.D. 145, 160 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Moreno, 2017 WL 3868803, at *5.
. Further, in Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-6284, 2018 WL 840364, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018), the named plaintiffs had invested in the challenged funds. Accordingly, these cases are inapposite.
The Court agrees. See Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-CV-6284 (KBF), 2018 WL 840364, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018) (“Mere receipt of the quarterly performance summaries does not demonstrate actual knowledge; moreover, these are plan-wide communications required by ERISA, rather than individualized conversations or notifications. A common question to the class is whether the facts in those documents are sufficient to establish actual knowledge of the breach; it will not be an individualized inquiry.
Plaintiffs maintain that the named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives because they “have identical legal and effectively identical financial interests in this action as do the proposed class members.” Sacerdote v. New York University, 2018 WL 840364, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018).
(“Even though every member of the proposed class-including the proposed lead plaintiffs-did not invest in all of the Plan's funds, the alleged foregone opportunities from funds that were not included and the alleged reduction in choice that resulted is an alleged injury in fact.”) (quoting Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16-cv-6284 (KBF), 2018 WL 840364, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted)
("Because the alleged harms are premised on the process Defendants used to manage the Plan, the claims involve similar inquiries and proof, and thus implicate the same set of concerns."); Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 16 Civ. 6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 275827, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2019), appeal pending ("Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties also implicate the same set of concerns with respect to non-named class members."); Sacerdote v. New York Univ., No. 16 Civ. 6284 (KBF), 2018 WL 840364, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018) ("[P]laintiffs need not prove individualized damages in an ERISA class action case; rather, an injury to the Plan suffices. [. . .] And while not every member of the class participated in the challenged fund options, the alleged foregone opportunities from funds that were not included and the alleged reduction in choice that resulted is an alleged injury in fact."