keeper in October 2003. Am. Compl. ¶ 39. To the extent Plaintiffs attempt to assert a claim based upon the initial selection of Retirement Services as record keeper (see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 76, 178), such claim is time-barred. Consequently, the Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ contention that In-sperity and Holdings should have selected the record keeper through a competitive bidding process. See Pl.’s Resp. to Insperity Mot. at 11. The Insperity Defendants’ motion to dismiss that portion of the Amended Complaint is GRANTED. However, because the majority of Plaintiffs’ assertions against Retirement Services concern its actions while operating as the record keeper, those allegations are not time-barred. See Tibble v. Edison Int’l, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1823, 1829, 191 L.Ed.2d 795 (2015) (<HOLDING>). 2. Whether All Insperity Defendants and
holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit holding that the defendants had a continuing duty to review investments and that the action was not barred to the extent breaches occurred within six years of filing the complaint holding that as long as alleged breach of a continuing duty occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit the claim is timely holding that where the violation of the fdcpa was the filing of a lawsuit the statule of limitations begins to run on the date of filing holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant