Santomenno v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. - PLANSPONSOR.com

Case 2:10-cv-01655-WJM-MF Document 84 Filed 07/24/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 4191Court will follow the Third Circuit, rather than relying on the out-of-circuit district courtdecisions offered by Plaintiffs. 5In conclusion, the Court finds that John Hancock was not acting as a fiduciarywhen taking any of the actions subject to complaint. Because fiduciary status is anessential element of all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court finds that the Second AmendedComplaint should be dismissed.IV.CONCLUSIONFor the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, andthe Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An appropriateorder follows.Date: July 24, 2013/s/ William J. MartiniWILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.5 In a single sentence of their Opposition Brief, Plaintiffs argue that John Hancock is estoppedfrom contesting its fiduciary status because it lost that issue when it was a Defendant in theCharters case. Opp. Br. at 28. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that collateral estoppelapplies. Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir. 2000). Because Plaintiffs made noattempt to meet that burden, the Court finds this argument unavailing.10