investment of plan assets, including any revenue sharing.” Employee Benefits Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, Advisory Opinion 2013-03A (July 3, 2013). Terraza alleges that, because the 2013-2014 financial statement provides that “[participants are charged $3.00 quarterly to cover the administrative costs of the [P]lan,” any additional fees paid to the trustee or record-keeper via revenue sharing payments above and beyond this amount are “by definition, excessive and unreasonable.” ECF No. 37 ¶46; ECF No. 53 at 20. Courts have denied motions to dismiss claims for breach of fiduciary duty where the plaintiff made similar allegations. See, e.g., Santomenno v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. CV 12-02782 DDP MANX, 2013 WL 603901, at *3, *10 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
holding that investment advisors with authority to make investment decisions for their clients have standing holding that plaintiff stated an erisa claim for breach of fiduciary duty where it alleged fiduciary imprudently based the choice of an annuity provider on the size of a potential reversion holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action holding that plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty where they alleged that the revenue sharing payments to the thirdparty service provider were excessive because the underlying mutual funds investment management fees covered all of the necessary investment managementadvisory services needed for the mutual fund holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty where he alleged that the plan offered funds that charged higher fees than available alternatives that underperformed during the relevant time period and that were included in the plan because of improper influence by the plans trustee