WPC) qTCbI,y7Yײ:`,zգٻ3lr;A0?i;RoE+a 7,*JT+VfoeT)3 el\gwiRa-QI6f.A)&M9W3˷!U}'׀!KK]@`ʸ 4 aY~ σU}l1ő"U ЗY s?c~Նeɰ:Q)t3!3枖A)JǢLQ+*(!KIcFHz{o; ltʬ\No*b ;Ba S.!sA Ĕ?'\:^wb8nIL7`sq|NV*@ MyŴ#ߜDxX{~\ʴ7^nh?Hik-AqD# %y 0 D 0( 0   nT^ 01 N ^ w 4   mE1)3N\>^b^oUN:fU F\U FdaN^U >N\\\\ B^^^^^^^^^^{{ ^HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($  ^$  =6XXdd=    1    _"XΧ XXXSeeMass.Gen.Lawsch.93A,2&11(West1997).(d:2^$ !    =vXXdd=    0    ^$  =6XXdd=    2    _=6XXdXXd="XΧ XXXAppellantsexplainthattheyenteredintothestipulation  becausethey"determinedthat[they]wouldprobablynotprevailat x trialonanyclaimunderERISA,inpartbecause[they]didnot @ allegethatTransamericahaddiscretionaryauthorityoverPlan X assets."Briefat5.#X6X X"XΧ#ԫ<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@0.Normal-s [,y File3|x U  ^$  =6XXdd=    4    _"XΧ XXXWehavejurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1291.#X6X X"XΧ#q:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT- -L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT  ^$  =6XXdd=    7    _"XΧ XXXWedonotholdthatappellantsclaimsproperlywere  dismissedasbeinginsufficientunderERISAaswedonotreachthat x issue.ThedistrictcourtenteredjudgmentforTransamericawith @ prejudiceonlybecauseappellantsconsentedtoitsentrysubjectto X theirrighttoappealfromthecompletepreemptionruling.The   districtcourtwaspreparedtoproceedwiththetrialon  appellantsclaimsasrestatedunderERISA.#X6X X"XΧ# e ^$  =6XXdd=    8    _"XΧ XXX_Mertens_subsequentlywasbeforetheSupremeCourtonanissue  notmaterialhere.See_Mertens_v._Hewitt_Ԁ_Assocs_.,508U.S.248, x 113_S.Ct_.2063(1993).#X6X X"XΧ#(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular 0#"u"Xd#  .Courier New Regular <4 9Z+.Courier New RegularTABLE AL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular dL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPTSearchTerm  ^$  =6XXdd=    6    _"XΧ XXXThissectionempowersaplanparticipant,beneficiary,or  fiduciarytobringacivilactionforappropriatereliefunder x ERISA409,29U.S.C.1109,thesectiongoverningliabilityfor @ breachofERISAfiduciaryduties.Ofcourse,theappellants X themselvesareundoubtedlyERISAfiduciariesandtheydonot   contendotherwise.#X6X X"XΧ#  ^$  =6XXdd=    3    _"XΧ XXXAppellantsdonotchallengethedistrictcourtsrulingthat  thereisnorighttotrialbyjuryforactionsallegingbreachof x fiduciarydutyunderERISA.#X6X X"XΧ#  ^$  =6XXdd=    5    _      S"XΧ XXXMackeyv.LanierCollectionAgency&Serv.,Inc.,486U.S.  825,833,108S.Ct.2182,2187(1988).#X6X X"XΧ# !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !   X~XXX8XX~  vUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#X~X8#GXX~  FortheFirstCircuit #SG##X6XSU#   A') ` dE<` A   "XΧ XXX6No.021247     @@$ $ DUDLEYSUPERMARKET,INC.,d/b/aPARKNSHOP; ! q _SOUTHBRIDGE_ԀPARKNSHOP,INC.,d/b/aPARKNSHOP;  9 CHARLESA._PAPPAS_,Trusteeofthe    DudleySupermarket,Inc.DefinedBenefitPlan; y   CHARLESA._PAPPAS_,JR.,Trusteeofthe A  DudleySupermarket,Inc.DefinedBenefitPlan,  Y  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,   @tt)v. )y  @_TRANSAMERICA_ԀLIFEINSURANCEANDANNUITYCOMPANY,   @<< Defendant,Appellee. I A') ` dE<` A )   @@*APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS @   @[Hon.NathanielM.Gorton,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<_` A ` @'Before 7    @@((_Boudin_,ChiefJudge, " _Selya_,CircuitJudge, W $ Greenberg,*SeniorCircuitJudge. !7& A') ` dE<v#` A w#(     JamesC._Donnelly_,Jr.withwhomPatriciaL.Davidsonand N$* _Mirick_,OConnell,_DeMallie_Ԁ&_Lougee_wereonbriefforappellants. %f +   ReidA._Evers_withwhomKevinM.Daltonand_Glovsky_Ԁ&_Glovsky_ %.!, wereonbriefforappellee. &!- 򀀀 6(#/ *OftheThirdCircuit,sittingbydesignation. )%1 *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  V+&3V+&  SI+ '4  O@37497 O@SAugust30,_2002_ ,'6  RHCJ-(7"  O@37497  O@ R ," + '8 ? ,v 8"Χ"X Xdd8   * !  GREENBERG,SeniorCircuitJudge. Thismattercomesonbefore   thiscourtonappealfromaJanuary28,2002orderofthedistrict  courtandafinaljudgmententeredonFebruary22,2002,infavor  p ofdefendantappellee_Transamerica_ԀLifeInsuranceandAnnuity   Company("_Transamerica_"). @    Plaintiffsappellants,DudleySupermarket,Inc.d/b/aPark'N'    Shop,_Southbridge_ԀPark'N'Shop,Inc.d/b/aPark'N'Shop,and `  CharlesA._Pappas_ԀandCharlesA._Pappas_,Jr.,Trusteesofthe @  DudleySupermarket,Inc.DefinedBenefitPlan,broughtthisaction   intheSuperiorCourtofMassachusetts,WorcesterDivision, ` alleging,purportedlysolelyunderstatelaw,commonlaw  negligence,breachofcontractandstatutory #  1      ׀unfairtrade 0 practices,interalia,inconnectionwithinvestmentservices  providedby_Transamerica_,afinancialservicescompany,with P respecttotheDudleySupermarket,Inc.DefinedBenefitPlan. 0 Appellantsexplainthattheircomplaintcharged_Transamerica_Ԁwith p wrongdoingarising"fromthesaleofPark'N'Shopsemployee P  retirementplan...,thesaleofinvestmentstothePlan,andthe " preparationofmisleadingactuarialvaluationreportswhichfailed  !p$ todisclosethePlansunfundedliability."Briefat4.Seealso "& Briefat6. @$(   _Transamerica_Ԁremovedthecasetothedistrictcourtonboth % !* diversityofcitizenshipandfederalquestiongroundspursuantto `'", 28U.S.C.1441(b).Itassertedthatthecomplaintnecessarily (@$. _wasunderfederallawbecauseitchargedthatithadbreachedits  fiduciarydutiesinviolationoftheEmployeeRetirementIncome @ SecurityAct("ERISA"),29U.S.C.1001etseq.,inparticular   ERISA409,29U.S.C.1109,andthusallegedacauseofaction `  underERISA502(a)(2),29U.S.C.1132(a)(2).Inasmuchas  @ appellantsacknowledgethatTransamericaproperlyremovedthecase    ondiversityofcitizenshipgrounds,theyunderstandablydidnot `  moveinthedistrictcourttoremandthecasetothestatecourt.     Subsequently,onTransamericasmotion,andoverappellants 0  objection,thedistrictcourtdeterminedthatERISAcompletely  preemptedappellantsclaimsanditaccordinglyenteredtheJanuary P 28,2002orderwhichrecharacterizedthestatelawclaimsas 0 arisingunderERISAandstruckappellantsdemandforajurytrial. p Thereafter,thepartiesenteredintoastipulationforentryof P judgmentinTransamericasfavor,reservingappellants'rightto  appealfromthedistrictcourt'sdeterminationwithregardtoERISA  p preemption. #  2      ׀Thedistrictcourtacceptedthestipulationand   enteredjudgmentinTransamericasfavorwithprejudiceonFebruary @" 22,2002.Appellantsthenfiledatimelynoticeofappeal.The  $ onlyissueappellantsraiseonappealiswhetherERISAcompletely `"&  preemptstheirstatelawclaims,thusjustifyingthedistrict #@( courtsdeterminationtotreattheiractionasbeingunderERISA.A #  3      ׀   Wereviewthislegalquestiononadenovobasis.SeeApontev. @ Calderon,284F.3d184,191(1stCir.2002). #  4      ׀         Therecanbenodoubtthatifappellantspurportedstatelaw `  claimsinfactchargedTransamericawithbreachoffiduciaryduty  @ whileactingasanERISAfiduciary,ERISAwouldpreemptcompletely    theirclaimswhichthuswouldhavetobeasserted,ifatall,under `  ERISA.SeeDancav.PrivateHealthCareSys.,Inc.,185F.3d1,4   6(1stCir.1999).Appellants,however,arguethattheydonot 0  allegethatTransamericaactedwithrespecttotheirplanasaplan  fiduciaryasdefinedbyERISAbutratheras"aproviderofgarden P varietyprofessionalservicesregulatedbystatelawsthatdonot 0 affectERISAsregulatoryscheme."Briefat1415.This p contentionrequiresustoconsidersection3(21)(A)ofERISA,29 P U.S.C.1002(21)(A),whichprovidesthatapersonisa"fiduciary"  withrespecttoanemployeebenefitplan,if,interalia,he  p "rendersinvestmentadviceforafeeorothercompensation,direct   orindirect,withrespecttoanymoneysorotherproperty"with @" respecttotheplan."Investmentadvice,"accordingtoDepartment  $ ofLaborregulations,coversadviceastothevalueofsecurities `"& orotherproperty,orastotheadvisabilityofinvestingin, #@( purchasing,orsellingsecuritiesorotherproperty,wherethe % * adviceisindividualizedandisrenderedonaregularbasis '`", pursuanttoamutualagreementforafee.  See29C.F.R.2510.3  21(c). @   Bytheplaintermsofthecomplaint,andasreflectedinthe   recordonappeal,Transamericawascompensatedastheprimary, `  individualized,androutineproviderofinvestmentadviceforthe  @ DudleySupermarket,Inc.DefinedBenefitPlan.Therefore,    TransamericawasanERISAfiduciaryratherthanamere `  professionalserviceproviderwithanancillaryrelationshiptothe   plan.SeeApp.at10,complaint6("TheTrusteeisexperienced 0  inthegrocerybusiness,buthadlittleornoexperiencein  managinginvestments,asafiduciaryorotherwise.Hereliedon P Transamerica,andTransamericasolicitedsuchreliance.");App.at 0 11,complaint10("Transamericaenteredintoaseriesof p agreementswithPark'N'Shopand/ortheTrusteebywhich P TransamericabecamethePlanadministratorandcustodianofthe  Planassets.Inaddition,Transamericaundertooktoprovide  p investmentservicesrelatingtotheinvestmentofPlanassets.");   App.at5455,appellantspretrialmemorandum(plantrusteehad @" "littleornoexperiencewithinvestments.Althoughnominally  $ responsiblefortheselectionofinvestments,hereliedon `"& Transamericatorecommendinvestmentsandalevelofcontributions #@( whichwouldfullyfundthePlanwithintwenty(20)years.... % * HealsoreliedonTransamericatoadvisehimifandwhenitbecame '`", advisabletochangetheinvestmentstrategy,orincrease (#. contributions.").ThefactthatintheabsenceofERISAthe 0*%0 complaintmayhaveassertedviablestatelawclaimscannotaffect +'2 ourresult.   ^"   Moreover,appellantsargumentatitscoreimplicates @ Transamericasallegedlydeficientinvestmentadvicewithrespect   tothemanagementofplanassets.Intheirstatelawcounts, `  appellantsclaim,interalia,thatTransamericafailedtoprovide  @ adequateinformationconcerningitsinvestmentpractices,to    provideaccurateactuarialstatements,andtodisclosethatthe `  planwasunderperforming.Likewise,intheirPreTrialMemorandum,   appellantslistascontestedissuesoffactwhetherTransamerica 0  "failedtodisclosevariousfinancialrisks"concerningtheplan,  "failedtoprovideaccurateinformation"regardingtheinvestment P ofplanassets,and"failedtoprovidePark'N'Shopwith 0 reasonablyprudentanddiverseinvestmentsforPlanassets."App. p at5859. P   Indeed,appellantsbriefhardlycouldbeclearerinalleging  thatTransamericaviolateditsfiduciarydutiesunderERISA.Thus,  p aftercomplainingthatTransamericaadvisedplacingtheplanassets   ininterestbasedinvestments,appellantssetforththatat @" "approximatelythesameperiodinthenineties,thestockmarket  $ experiencedverysubstantialincreasesinvalue"andthat `"& Transamerica"failedtonotifyPark'N'ShopthatPlanassetscould #@( beinvestedinstocks,whichhavehistoricallyoutperformedfixed % * incomeinvestmentsbyasubstantialmargin."Briefat1112.We '`", cannotunderstandhowappellantscanargueseriouslythatsuch (#. allegationsdonotassertthatTransamericabreacheditsfiduciary 0*%0 dutieswhenwetakeintoaccountERISAsprovisionthat"aperson +'2 isafiduciarywithrespecttoaplantotheextent[that]he  rendersinvestmentadviceforafeeorothercompensation,direct @ orindirect,withrespecttoanymoneysorotherpropertyofsuch   plan."ERISA3(21),29U.S.C.1002(21). `    Fundamentally,itisclearthatthegravamenofthecomplaint  @ isthatTransamericabreacheditsfiduciarydutyunderERISAto    providecompetentinvestmentadviceandservicesratherthan,as `  appellantsargue,thatTransamericamerelyviolated"runofthe   mill"C #  5      ׀statelawsthatarelargelytangentialtoandnotpreempted 0  byERISA.SeeERISA404(a),29U.S.C.1104(a)(ERISAfiduciary  mustdischargehisdutieswithreasonablecare,skill,and P diligence,andwiththegoalofminimizingtheriskoflargeloss 0 throughassetdiversification);seealsoERISA409(a),29U.S.C. p 1109(a)(Anyfiduciarywho"breachesanyoftheresponsibilities, P obligations,ordutiesimposeduponfiduciariesbythissubchapter  shallbepersonallyliabletomakegoodtosuchplananylossesto  p theplanresultingfromeachsuchbreach,andtorestoretosuch   plananyprofitsofsuchfiduciarywhichhavebeenmadethroughuse @" ofassetsoftheplanbythefiduciary....").Consequently,  $ appellants'statelawclaimsinrealityassertthatTransamericaas `"& anERISAfiduciarygaveanERISAplaninadequateinvestmentadvice #@( andthustheclaimsfallsquarelywithintheexclusivescopeofthe % *  federalcivilenforcementprovisionsofERISA502(a)(2),29 '`", U.S.C.1132(a)(2).< #  6      ׀ERISAthereforecompletelypreemptsthe   claims.SeeMetropolitanLifeIns.Co.v.Taylor,481U.S.58,63, @ 6667,107S.Ct.1542,154648(1987);% 2 %2CDanca,185F.3dat7   (completepreemptionwherethestatelawclaimsproperlyare `  characterizedas"alternativeenforcementmechanism[s]"ofERISA  @ 502(a)(2),29U.S.C.1132(a)(2))(citationsomitted).@ #  7      ׀      Wehaveexaminedthemanycasesthatappellantsciteto `  supporttheirassertionthat"claimsbasedessentiallyon   professionalmalpracticearenotpreemptedbyERISAeventhoughthe 0  claimsinvolveinsomewayaplangovernedbyERISA."Briefat30.  Thesecases,assignificanthere,simplyindicatethatthe P malpracticeclaimsagainstthedefendantsthere,whowerenot 0 fiduciarieswithrespecttoanERISAplan,werenotpreempted. p See,e.g.,BerlinCityFord,Inc.v.RobertsPlanningGroup,864F. P Supp.292,295(D.N.H.1994)("Forthepurposeofarguingthe  removalissue,bothpartiesassumethatRobertsisnotaplan  p fiduciary.Thus,theissuetoberesolvediswhetheraplan   administratorsstatelawprofessionalnegligenceclaimsagainsta @" nonfiduciaryrelatetoanERISAregulatedplanwithinthe  meaningof[ERISA514(a),]29U.S.C.1144(a).");Mertensv. @ KaiserSteelRet.Plan,829F.Supp.1158(N.D.Cal.1992)   (actuarialmalpractice); #  8      ׀seealsoShoferv.StuartHackCo.,595 `  A.2d1078,108182(Md.1991)("Thereareappellatecasesholding  @ thatcertainprofessionalswhogaveadviceto,orperformed    ministerialservicesfor,ERISAplanswerenotfiduciaries.") `  (collectingcases).     Ontheotherhand,"thereisnoperserulethatprevents 0  professionalswhorenderadvicetoanERISAplanfrombecoming  fiduciaries."Pappasv.BuckConsultants,Inc.,923F.2d531,538 P (7thCir.1991).Thatsituationdescribesthiscaseasappellants 0 contentionswithrespecttoTransamericasfunctionsestablishthat p whereverthelinethatseparatesanordinaryprofessionalfroma P fiduciaryforERISApurposesmaybe,Transamericaisonthe  fiduciarysideoftheline.Thus,wearedealingwithcomplete  p preemption.     Finally,reachingourresultweemphasizethatwedonot @" disregardappellantscharacterizationoftheircomplaintas  $ settingforth"allegations...relatedsolelytoTransamericas `"& roleinsellingthePlan,sellinginvestmentsandproviding #@( professionalactuarialservicesinanindependent,nonfiduciary % * capacity."Briefat20.Rather,wedonotaccepttheirconclusory '`", statementthatTransamericaactedina"nonfiduciarycapacity," (#. forappellantsspecificfactualallegationssimplydonotsupport  thisconclusion.Acourtmustmakeitsdeterminationofwhetheran @ entityactedinafiduciarycapacitywithrespecttothealleged   wrongdoingnotonthebasisofaplaintiffscharacterizationof `  theactivitybutratheronthebasisofthefunctionstheentity  @ performedanditsrelationshiptotheplaintiff.      Affirmed.