Fiduciary duty and litigation

Why Navarro v. Wells Fargo differs from Lewandowski

Originally posted by

Navarro v. Wells Fargo shouldn’t be dismissed on the same redressability grounds as Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson.

Why?

Wells Fargo has already conceded that redressability is not at issue in Navarro’s individual claim for relief.

And while Lewandowski has been cited by both sides as supplemental authority, it’s an unpublished district court opinion from a different circuit—meaning it’s persuasive, not binding.

The attorneys on both sides of the v. have already filed supplemental authority based on Lewandowski.

Navarro’s take: https://lnkd.in/eQ7HNteP

Wells Fargo’s take: https://lnkd.in/e4X6icA8

This is a rapidly-evolving legal landscape. Plan sponsors would be well advised to take prudent actions to avoid ending up on the wrong side of the v. in the first place.

Sources

  • Navarro v. Wells Fargo
  • Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson

Originally posted on LinkedIn, where the discussion and source links live in the comments.

About the author

Chris Vanderwolk is Director of Compliance and Innovation at OneDigital | Kistler Tiffany Benefits General Agency, where he helps brokers and employers navigate the regulatory complexity of employee benefits. An ERISA attorney with more than 19 years in the benefits industry, he specializes in translating what the law actually requires into language people can use.

All writing