⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears argument in Munoz versus Alorica Incorporated. This is a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, alleging that the fiduciaries of a 401k retirement plan breached their duties in two ways: first, by offering underperforming investment options and failing to monitor them, and second, by paying excessive record keeping fees. The panel must decide whether the district court properly certified a class, given the defendants' contention — which the district court rejected — that the two named plaintiffs did not personally invest in most of the challenged funds, and when the plaintiffs' proposed remedy for the record keeping fee theory would leave some class members paying more than they do now. The defendant argues that the named plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to sue over funds they never owned, and that even if standing exists, the claims fail the requirements of typicality and adequacy of representation under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case touches on a recurring tension in ERISA litigation: when are injuries to a retirement plan truly plan wide, and when are they so individualized that a class action cannot proceed?

Munoz v. Alorica, Inc. (No. 25-7359) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026.