Case Explained: KLAWONN V. BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY PENSION PLANS, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 2:20-cv-09194-DMG-AS The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Patricia Klawonn’s ERISA claim alleging a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring underperformance to be “both substantial and consistent” to support a claim of imprudence, failing to apply the prospective methodology clarified in *Anderson v. Intel Corp. Inv. Pol’y Comm.*, 137 F.4th 1015 (9th Cir. 2025), which mandates evaluating prudence based on the methods fiduciaries employed at the time of their decisions rather than hindsight-based results. Additionally, the court noted that the district court erred by implying a requirement for “substantial loss” when ERISA statute 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) imposes liability for “any loss.” Regarding the class certification, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the initial ruling but determined that Klawonn’s individual claim for prospective relief became moot by the time of summary judgment due to her continued unemployment and decision to cash out of the plan, rendering her prospects of returning to work speculative. However, because the class was properly certified before her claim became moot, the class action itself remains viable. On remand, the district court is instructed to analyze the breach of fiduciary duty based on the *Anderson* standard and to determine whether a substitute class representative is available to continue the litigation. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.