review and authority over all fiduciary actions taken and decisions made by the Administration Committee Defendants.” Defendants’ only arguments that Plaintiffs’ allegations do not confer fiduciary status on Board Defendants are that Board Defendants’ authority is limited to appointing and removing other fiduciaries and that all of Plaintiffs’ allegations relate to duties allocated to and exercised by other fiduciaries. Consider ing Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Board Defendants exercised fiduciary duties beyond the appointment duty by reviewing the Administration Committees’ fiduciary functions. Moreover, as a matter of law, courts in the Fifth Circuit have imposed a duty to monitor appointees on fiduciaries with appointment power. Enron, 284, F.Supp.2d 511, 659 (S.D.Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, although the Court recognizes fact
holding that a public trust that exercised control over the beneficiarys employment did not change the benefit plan into a government plan because the trust did not establish the plan or control it holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that as a matter of law because enronhas authority and control over appointments of fiduciaries to administer the plan and control its investments it also has a fiduciary duty to monitor its appointees holding authority to control limits duty to control holding it is critical to the trial courts power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it including requests for extensions of time