Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does an administrator hired by an ERISA plan act as a fiduciary when it controls prices paid by the plan or its participants (as the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits hold) or is control over pricing exempt from the definition of "fiduciary" (the DeLuca exception) if the administrator is in the "business" of setting prices for its clients (as the Second and Sixth Circuits maintain)?
2. If the DeLuca exception is, in fact, a proper gloss on ERISA based on this Court's decision in Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000), does it exempt from fiduciary status a third-party benefit manager that exercises ongoing discretion over the actual prices charged to the plans pursuant to a contract with the plan administrator?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does an administrator hired by an ERISA plan act as a fiduciary when it controls prices paid by the plan or its participants?
2022-06-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2022-06-03
Supplemental brief of petitioners John Doe 1, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-24
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2021-12-13
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-18
Reply of petitioners John Doe 1, et al. filed.
2021-11-03
Brief of respondent Express Scripts, Inc. in opposition filed.
2021-11-03
Brief of respondent Anthem, Inc. in opposition filed.
2021-11-03
Brief amicus curiae of Pension Rights Center filed.
2021-10-04
Motion (21M3) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted.
2021-07-07
MOTION (21M3) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-25
Motion (21M3) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
2021-06-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2021)