{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30)",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-10-15",
    "fingerprint": "ewai:us:5413c6",
    "proof": "sha256:5e1247f954dc09e171f9f4de5a1fa4c9052be1491106e282eaa1a6bdf410ebd3",
    "jurisdiction": "us",
    "lang": "en",
    "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal",
    "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"
  },
  "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
  "item": {
    "schema_version": "1.0.0",
    "id": "us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "jurisdiction": "us",
    "lang": "en",
    "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
    "brand": {
      "product": "NovaCopilot",
      "platform": "ExploreWorldAI",
      "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal",
      "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
      "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB",
      "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot",
      "source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
      "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot",
      "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"
    },
    "sections": [
      {
        "title": "FOR PUBLICATION",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "CATHY POVER, individually and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_5",
          "para_6",
          "para_7",
          "para_8"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "THE CAPITAL GROUP",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "COMPANIES, INC.; THE BOARD",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "OF DIRECTORS OF THE",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_12",
          "para_13"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "RETIREMENT BENEFITS",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "COMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "GROUP COMPANIES INC., and its",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_17",
          "para_18"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 24-5298",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_20"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2:23-cv-09657-",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "GW-PVC",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "OPINION",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_25"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Argued and Submitted August 11, 2025",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Pasadena, California",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Filed July 30, 2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_30"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Danielle J. Forrest, and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_32"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Opinion by Judge Forrest;",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Dissent by Judge VanDyke",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "SUMMARY*",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA/Arbitration",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_38"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Cathy Pover sued her former employer, The Capital Group",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Companies, Inc., and its fiduciaries on behalf of her",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_41"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Savings Plan (the Plan), alleging that the fiduciaries",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_43"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Plan is covered by the Employee Retirement Income",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which permits plan",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_46",
          "para_47",
          "para_48",
          "para_49",
          "para_50",
          "para_51",
          "para_52",
          "para_53",
          "para_54",
          "para_55"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 3",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_57",
          "para_58",
          "para_59",
          "para_60",
          "para_61"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Because the Plan’s waiver provision forbids Pover from",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_63",
          "para_64",
          "para_65",
          "para_66",
          "para_67"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA § 409 imposes on plan fiduciaries, and under ERISA",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_69",
          "para_70",
          "para_71",
          "para_72",
          "para_73"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA because her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims can",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_75",
          "para_76",
          "para_77"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Addressing the severability of the waiver and arbitration",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_79",
          "para_80",
          "para_81",
          "para_82",
          "para_83",
          "para_84",
          "para_85",
          "para_86"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Dissenting, Judge VanDyke wrote that the majority errs",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_88",
          "para_89"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "On the merits, he would hold that the bar on “representative”",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_91",
          "para_92",
          "para_93",
          "para_94",
          "para_95"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "But the panel should not have even reached the issue of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_97",
          "para_98",
          "para_99"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Although Capital failed to make that argument before the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_101",
          "para_102",
          "para_103"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "COUNSEL",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Charles H. Field Jr. (argued), Hilary R. Rosenthal, and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_106"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "La Jolla, California; David B. McNamee, Kristi Stahnke",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "McGregor, and Kevin H. Sharp, Sanford Heisler Sharp",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "McKnight LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Sharon Kim, Sanford",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP, New York, New York;",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Hampton M. Watson, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_112",
          "para_113",
          "para_114",
          "para_115",
          "para_116"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Massachusetts; Jeremy Patashnik, Skadden Arps Slate",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 5",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_119"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Russell, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Los",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_121"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Leah M. Nicholls, Public Justice PC, Washington, D.C., for",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_123"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "OPINION",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "FORREST, Circuit Judge:",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Cathy Pover sued her former employer, The Capital",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Group Companies, Inc., and its fiduciaries on behalf of her",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_128",
          "para_129",
          "para_130",
          "para_131",
          "para_132",
          "para_133",
          "para_134",
          "para_135",
          "para_136",
          "para_137",
          "para_138",
          "para_139",
          "para_140",
          "para_141",
          "para_142"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "BACKGROUND",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "A. The Plan",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group is a global asset manager that sponsors a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_146",
          "para_147",
          "para_148",
          "para_149"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group, as well as the participant’s investment earnings. The",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_151",
          "para_152",
          "para_153",
          "para_154"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Plan is a “defined contribution plan.” The Supreme",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Court has explained that “a ‘defined contribution plan’ or",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_157",
          "para_158",
          "para_159",
          "para_160"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 250 n.1",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "(2008). A “defined benefit plan,” in contrast, “promises the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_163",
          "para_164",
          "para_165",
          "para_166",
          "para_167",
          "para_168"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Plan is governed by ERISA and the terms of its Plan",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Document. According to the Plan Document, the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Administrative Committee serves as the Plan’s fiduciary and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_172"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Committee amended the Plan before this litigation by adding",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_174"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 7",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_176",
          "para_177",
          "para_178",
          "para_179"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan or a claimant’s participation in the Plan and seeks a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_181",
          "para_182",
          "para_183"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "A Participant, former Participant, or",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Beneficiary must bring any dispute in",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_186",
          "para_187",
          "para_188",
          "para_189",
          "para_190",
          "para_191",
          "para_192",
          "para_193"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The waiver also specifies that if it “is found to be",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_195",
          "para_196",
          "para_197",
          "para_198"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "B. The Lawsuit",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover sued Capital Group, the Committee, Capital",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Group’s Board of Directors, and other fiduciaries",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_202",
          "para_203",
          "para_204",
          "para_205",
          "para_206",
          "para_207",
          "para_208",
          "para_209",
          "para_210",
          "para_211",
          "para_212",
          "para_213"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group failed to monitor its delegees, further harming the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_215"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover sued Capital Group “in a representative capacity",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_217",
          "para_218",
          "para_219",
          "para_220"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group fiduciaries breached their duties owed to the Plan and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_222",
          "para_223"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group’s fiduciaries to pay “the losses resulting from each",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_225",
          "para_226",
          "para_227",
          "para_228",
          "para_229",
          "para_230"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group moved to compel arbitration under the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), asserting that Pover is bound",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_233"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group’s motion, arguing that the Plan’s representative-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_235",
          "para_236",
          "para_237"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan and pursue plan-wide relief on its behalf, undermining",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_239",
          "para_240"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 9",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group. Finally, Pover contended that the arbitration",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_243"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The district court denied Capital Group’s motion to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_245",
          "para_246",
          "para_247"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA. The district court explained that ERISA creates a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_249",
          "para_250",
          "para_251",
          "para_252",
          "para_253",
          "para_254",
          "para_255"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Therefore, it held that the waiver was unenforceable. It also",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_257",
          "para_258",
          "para_259"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "DISCUSSION",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_262"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "We review the district court’s decision and its interpretation",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_264",
          "para_265",
          "para_266"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "To promote uniformity, we interpret the language of ERISA",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_268",
          "para_269",
          "para_270"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "This case requires us to consider the interaction between",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_272",
          "para_273",
          "para_274"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "FAA, which requires courts to enforce valid agreements to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_276",
          "para_277",
          "para_278",
          "para_279",
          "para_280",
          "para_281"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan’s representative-action waiver is enforceable. Because",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_283",
          "para_284",
          "para_285"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "A. Legal Principles",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "1. ERISA",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_288",
          "para_289",
          "para_290"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209 (2002) (internal",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_292",
          "para_293",
          "para_294",
          "para_295",
          "para_296"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "134, 139–40, 142 & n.9 (1985); Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., 148",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_298"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "First, § 409(a) imposes liability on fiduciaries who",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_300",
          "para_301"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_303",
          "para_304",
          "para_305"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 11",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_307",
          "para_308",
          "para_309",
          "para_310",
          "para_311",
          "para_312",
          "para_313",
          "para_314",
          "para_315"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Id. “[T]he principal statutory duties imposed on [fiduciaries]",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_317",
          "para_318",
          "para_319",
          "para_320",
          "para_321",
          "para_322"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). It provides that “[a] civil action",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_324",
          "para_325",
          "para_326",
          "para_327",
          "para_328"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Supreme Court has examined how these ERISA",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_330",
          "para_331",
          "para_332",
          "para_333",
          "para_334",
          "para_335",
          "para_336",
          "para_337"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 253 (explaining that § 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_339",
          "para_340",
          "para_341",
          "para_342"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_344"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA-backed employee-benefits plan sued a plan fiduciary",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_346",
          "para_347",
          "para_348",
          "para_349",
          "para_350",
          "para_351",
          "para_352",
          "para_353",
          "para_354",
          "para_355",
          "para_356",
          "para_357",
          "para_358",
          "para_359",
          "para_360",
          "para_361",
          "para_362",
          "para_363",
          "para_364",
          "para_365",
          "para_366"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Thirty years later, the Supreme Court revisited",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_368"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 250–51. In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Associates, Inc., a retirement-plan participant alleged that a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_371",
          "para_372"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 13",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_374",
          "para_375",
          "para_376"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Supreme Court held that the misconduct the plan",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_378",
          "para_379",
          "para_380",
          "para_381",
          "para_382",
          "para_383",
          "para_384"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Court distinguished its previous language in Russell, which",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_386",
          "para_387",
          "para_388"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Court explained that “Russell’s emphasis on protecting the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_390",
          "para_391",
          "para_392",
          "para_393",
          "para_394",
          "para_395"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Court also clarified that in the defined-contribution-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_397",
          "para_398",
          "para_399",
          "para_400",
          "para_401",
          "para_402",
          "para_403",
          "para_404",
          "para_405"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Section 409(a) protects against breaches of fiduciary duty",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_407",
          "para_408",
          "para_409",
          "para_410",
          "para_411",
          "para_412",
          "para_413"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "552 U.S. at 253–56; see also Russell, 473 U.S. at 142 n.9;",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_415"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2018) (“[T]he [LaRue] Court made clear that it had not",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_417",
          "para_418",
          "para_419",
          "para_420"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2. FAA",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Congress enacted the FAA in 1925 as a “response to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_423",
          "para_424",
          "para_425",
          "para_426"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). It provides that “[a]",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_428",
          "para_429",
          "para_430",
          "para_431",
          "para_432",
          "para_433"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Consistent with its underlying purpose, the FAA’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_435"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 653 (2022) (citation",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_437",
          "para_438",
          "para_439"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 15",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_441",
          "para_442",
          "para_443"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "But there is an exception for arbitration agreements that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_445"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "This exception is known as the effective-vindication",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_447"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "3. Effective-Vindication Doctrine",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "An arbitration agreement “does not alter or abridge",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_450",
          "para_451"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Indeed, “[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_453",
          "para_454",
          "para_455"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985). Thus, where “a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_457",
          "para_458",
          "para_459",
          "para_460"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "We recently joined several of our sister circuits in",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_462",
          "para_463"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "1 The Supreme Court has discussed with approval the effective-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_465",
          "para_466",
          "para_467",
          "para_468",
          "para_469"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Cir. 2023) (“[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_471",
          "para_472",
          "para_473",
          "para_474",
          "para_475"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "S.A. involved an arbitration provision in an ERISA-governed",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_477",
          "para_478",
          "para_479",
          "para_480",
          "para_481",
          "para_482",
          "para_483",
          "para_484",
          "para_485"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "We began our analysis by explaining that the effective-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_487",
          "para_488",
          "para_489",
          "para_490",
          "para_491"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "U.S. at 235–36). We then addressed the same two ERISA",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_493",
          "para_494",
          "para_495",
          "para_496",
          "para_497",
          "para_498",
          "para_499",
          "para_500",
          "para_501",
          "para_502",
          "para_503",
          "para_504",
          "para_505"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 17",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "B. Application",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "With this legal backdrop, we consider whether the Plan’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_509",
          "para_510"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "1. Representative-Action Waiver",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover’s complaint makes clear that she seeks to represent",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_513",
          "para_514",
          "para_515",
          "para_516",
          "para_517",
          "para_518",
          "para_519"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The complaint also outlines a spectrum of both monetary",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_521",
          "para_522",
          "para_523",
          "para_524",
          "para_525",
          "para_526"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover requests restitution, disgorgement, removal of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_528",
          "para_529",
          "para_530",
          "para_531"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2 Capital Group argues, for the first time on appeal, that the parties",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_533"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group forfeited this argument by not raising it in the district",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_535",
          "para_536",
          "para_537",
          "para_538",
          "para_539",
          "para_540"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "To determine whether the representative-action waiver",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_542"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(1) whether the waiver prevents Pover from bringing claims",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_544",
          "para_545",
          "para_546",
          "para_547"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The Plan’s waiver provision prohibits current and former",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_549",
          "para_550"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Participants may bring disputes “on an individual basis",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_552",
          "para_553",
          "para_554"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group is correct that the Supreme Court has recognized that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_556",
          "para_557",
          "para_558",
          "para_559"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Cruises, 596 U.S. at 648. We have held that § 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_561",
          "para_562",
          "para_563",
          "para_564"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance, Munro",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_566",
          "para_567"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(alteration in original) (quoting Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)), the relief afforded by",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_570"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 19",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Cintas Corp., 32 F.4th 625, 632 (6th Cir. 2022) (following",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Munro); Williams v. Shapiro, 161 F.4th 1313, 1322 (11th",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_574",
          "para_575"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The remaining question is simply how to interpret",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_577",
          "para_578",
          "para_579"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "148 F.4th at 715. We held that language to be a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_581",
          "para_582"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan’s behalf.” Id. at 721. There is no meaningful difference",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_584",
          "para_585",
          "para_586",
          "para_587",
          "para_588",
          "para_589",
          "para_590",
          "para_591",
          "para_592",
          "para_593"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Relying on LaRue, Capital Group argues that a defined-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_595",
          "para_596"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "3 We agree with our dissenting colleague that Platt does not “hold that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_598",
          "para_599",
          "para_600"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "But we disagree that the difference between the words of the waiver",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_602",
          "para_603",
          "para_604",
          "para_605",
          "para_606",
          "para_607",
          "para_608"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "LaRue held that a participant in a defined-contribution",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_610",
          "para_611",
          "para_612"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Group suggests, limit plaintiffs participating in defined-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_614",
          "para_615"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "502(a)(2) allows individualized relief for injuries that are",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_617",
          "para_618",
          "para_619",
          "para_620",
          "para_621",
          "para_622"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "56; see also Munro, 896 F.3d at 1093; Cedeno, 100 F.4th at",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "399. What § 502(a)(2) does not allow is for a participant",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_625",
          "para_626"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group’s interpretation of LaRue “rests on the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_628",
          "para_629",
          "para_630",
          "para_631",
          "para_632"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "405. ERISA does not allow “a court or arbitral forum to slice",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_634",
          "para_635",
          "para_636",
          "para_637"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 21",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_639",
          "para_640",
          "para_641"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Capital Group advances. See, e.g., id. at 399, 404–06; Parker",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_643",
          "para_644"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Additionally, while the difference between defined-",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_646",
          "para_647",
          "para_648",
          "para_649",
          "para_650",
          "para_651",
          "para_652",
          "para_653",
          "para_654",
          "para_655",
          "para_656"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "LaRue thus turned on the nature of the injury suffered on",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_658",
          "para_659"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Here, Pover alleges fiduciary breaches that harmed the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan as a whole. For example, she alleges that Capital Group",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_662",
          "para_663",
          "para_664",
          "para_665",
          "para_666",
          "para_667",
          "para_668",
          "para_669"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(noting that § 409(a)’s fiduciary obligations “reflect[] a",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_671",
          "para_672",
          "para_673"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "And under § 502(a)(2), Pover is entitled to bring an action",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_675",
          "para_676",
          "para_677"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "For these reasons, we conclude that the Plan’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_679",
          "para_680",
          "para_681",
          "para_682",
          "para_683"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2. Severability",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Having concluded that the representative-action waiver",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_686",
          "para_687",
          "para_688"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The waiver provision expressly provides that if it “is found",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_690",
          "para_691",
          "para_692",
          "para_693",
          "para_694",
          "para_695",
          "para_696",
          "para_697",
          "para_698"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "The majority errs twice over in finding the arbitration",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_701"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 23",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_703",
          "para_704",
          "para_705",
          "para_706",
          "para_707",
          "para_708",
          "para_709",
          "para_710",
          "para_711"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "But we should not have even reached the issue of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_713",
          "para_714",
          "para_715"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Although Capital failed to make that argument before the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_717",
          "para_718",
          "para_719",
          "para_720"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "I. The majority errs by holding the class-action",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_722"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The majority explains (1) that in a section 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "ERISA claim, the plaintiff proceeds on behalf of the plan and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_725"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Op. at 14; (2) that Pover “seeks to represent the Plan” and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_727",
          "para_728",
          "para_729"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover can bring a section 502(a)(2) claim to recover for both",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_731",
          "para_732",
          "para_733",
          "para_734",
          "para_735",
          "para_736"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The critical question here, though, is whether the Plan’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_738"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover from bringing section 502(a)(2) claims on behalf of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_740",
          "para_741"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover from exercising her statutory right to bring",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_743",
          "para_744"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The majority devotes little attention to this crucial",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_746",
          "para_747",
          "para_748",
          "para_749",
          "para_750",
          "para_751",
          "para_752",
          "para_753"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "A. The class-action waiver does not foreclose suits on",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_755"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "To understand the interpretive dispute here, it’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_757",
          "para_758",
          "para_759"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(1) collective-action suits where a putative plaintiff",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_761"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(2) principal-agent suits where the putative plaintiff",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_763",
          "para_764"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "U.S. 639, 648 (2022). Rule 23 class actions provide the most",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_766"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 25",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_768",
          "para_769"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "But the second, “principal-agent” category encompasses",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_771",
          "para_772",
          "para_773",
          "para_774",
          "para_775",
          "para_776",
          "para_777"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing qui tam relators as",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_779",
          "para_780",
          "para_781",
          "para_782",
          "para_783",
          "para_784",
          "para_785"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "596 U.S. at 655, 657. Suits that are “representative” in the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_787",
          "para_788",
          "para_789"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The parties do not dispute, and this court’s case law",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_791",
          "para_792",
          "para_793"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2018). So the important question here is whether the term",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_795",
          "para_796"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "A contextual reading of the Plan’s class-action waiver",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_798",
          "para_799",
          "para_800",
          "para_801",
          "para_802",
          "para_803"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "United States, 603 U.S. 480, 487 (2024). And when a word",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_805",
          "para_806",
          "para_807"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 458 (2022)). A classic",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_809"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "574 U.S. 528 (2015) (plurality opinion). There, the Supreme",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Court considered whether the Sarbanes–Oxley Act’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_812",
          "para_813",
          "para_814",
          "para_815",
          "para_816",
          "para_817",
          "para_818",
          "para_819"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "J., concurring in judgment). In context, it was clear that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_821",
          "para_822",
          "para_823",
          "para_824"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Applying this interpretive approach to the Plan’s",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_826",
          "para_827",
          "para_828",
          "para_829",
          "para_830",
          "para_831",
          "para_832",
          "para_833"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 27",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_835",
          "para_836",
          "para_837",
          "para_838",
          "para_839",
          "para_840",
          "para_841"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover responds that reading the class-action waiver this",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_843",
          "para_844",
          "para_845",
          "para_846",
          "para_847",
          "para_848",
          "para_849",
          "para_850",
          "para_851",
          "para_852",
          "para_853",
          "para_854",
          "para_855",
          "para_856"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Collins, 604 U.S. 369, 387 (2025) (citations omitted); see",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_858"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "(2013) (declining to apply the canon against surplusage",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_860",
          "para_861",
          "para_862",
          "para_863"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2026), and it appears that the Plan’s drafters simply included",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_865",
          "para_866",
          "para_867",
          "para_868",
          "para_869",
          "para_870",
          "para_871",
          "para_872"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "U.S. 624, 635 (2012). As Justice Scalia observed, the canon",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_874",
          "para_875",
          "para_876",
          "para_877",
          "para_878"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Doublets and triplets abound in legalese: Execute and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_880",
          "para_881",
          "para_882",
          "para_883"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "77 (2012). “Sometimes,” as here, “the better overall reading",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_885"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U.S. 334, 346 (2019); accord",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Freeman, 566 U.S. at 635 (adopting interpretation of statute",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_888",
          "para_889"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Pover’s reading would also render an important part of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_891",
          "para_892",
          "para_893",
          "para_894",
          "para_895",
          "para_896",
          "para_897",
          "para_898",
          "para_899",
          "para_900"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 29",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_902",
          "para_903",
          "para_904",
          "para_905",
          "para_906"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Reading the Plan’s class-action waiver as applying only to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_908",
          "para_909",
          "para_910",
          "para_911",
          "para_912"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "At bottom, the best reading of the Plan’s class-action",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_914",
          "para_915",
          "para_916",
          "para_917",
          "para_918"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Eliding any analysis of the Plan’s language, the majority",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_920",
          "para_921",
          "para_922",
          "para_923",
          "para_924"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The SPD provides that plan participants may not “participate in a class",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_926",
          "para_927",
          "para_928"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The SPD thus confirms that the arbitration provisions were intended to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_930"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan, while foreclosing only class- or collective-action representative",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_932",
          "para_933"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "In Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., a three-judge panel held that the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_935",
          "para_936",
          "para_937",
          "para_938"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "709, 715, 721 (9th Cir. 2025) (emphasis added). The Platt",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_940",
          "para_941",
          "para_942",
          "para_943",
          "para_944",
          "para_945",
          "para_946"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "It’s hard to tell exactly why the Platt panel was so",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_948",
          "para_949",
          "para_950",
          "para_951",
          "para_952"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Nor did it inspect the language of the arbitration clause at",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_954",
          "para_955",
          "para_956",
          "para_957",
          "para_958",
          "para_959",
          "para_960",
          "para_961",
          "para_962",
          "para_963",
          "para_964",
          "para_965"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 31",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "It’s also not clear why the majority is so confident that",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Platt “controls” here. Majority Op. at 19. The language in",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_969",
          "para_970",
          "para_971",
          "para_972"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Platt to hold that every arbitration agreement provision with",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_974",
          "para_975",
          "para_976"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Platt’s cursory holding about the specific agreement in that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_978",
          "para_979",
          "para_980",
          "para_981"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Platt is thus no bar to properly construing the actual",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_983",
          "para_984",
          "para_985"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan. Because the waiver does not ban those suits, it does",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_987",
          "para_988",
          "para_989"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "II. We should have applied well-established exceptions",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_991",
          "para_992"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Although the majority errs in extending Platt’s holding",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_994",
          "para_995",
          "para_996"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) tasks courts with a limited",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_998",
          "para_999"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Rent–A–Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010); 9",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1001",
          "para_1002",
          "para_1003"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "(1989); Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1006",
          "para_1007"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The freedom to contract includes the freedom to keep courts",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1009",
          "para_1010",
          "para_1011",
          "para_1012",
          "para_1013"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); Rent–",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1015"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). When parties “clearly",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1017",
          "para_1018"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting AT",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1020",
          "para_1021"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Here, the Plan Committee added an arbitration clause",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1023",
          "para_1024",
          "para_1025",
          "para_1026",
          "para_1027"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The clause explicitly incorporated the American",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Rules, stating: “[a]ny",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1030",
          "para_1031",
          "para_1032"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 33",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "American Arbitration Association under its Employment",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures.” Under Ninth",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Circuit precedent, this incorporation constitutes “clear and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1037",
          "para_1038",
          "para_1039"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "87 n.5 (9th Cir. 2024). Threshold issues delegated to the",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1041",
          "para_1042"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Inc., 97 F.4th 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2024). The Plan’s “clear",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1044",
          "para_1045",
          "para_1046",
          "para_1047"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The majority refuses to resolve the case on these clear",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1049",
          "para_1050",
          "para_1051",
          "para_1052",
          "para_1053",
          "para_1054"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006);",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1056"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "2 The amendment complied with ERISA’s procedural requirements. The",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan expressly authorizes the Committee to amend the Plan. The",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1059",
          "para_1060",
          "para_1061",
          "para_1062",
          "para_1063",
          "para_1064"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "78 (1995). Pover does not dispute that the Committee had authority to",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1066",
          "para_1067"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Whether incorporation of AAA Rules in the Plan governs",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1069"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "1130. The record is also complete since nobody disputes",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1071",
          "para_1072",
          "para_1073"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan are irrelevant to whether the Plan agreed to arbitration",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "(which it clearly did). Pover is suing here on behalf of the",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Plan—she cannot rely on her individual level of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1077",
          "para_1078",
          "para_1079",
          "para_1080",
          "para_1081",
          "para_1082",
          "para_1083"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "We should not have even decided the issue of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_1085",
          "para_1086",
          "para_1087",
          "para_1088",
          "para_1089",
          "para_1090",
          "para_1091",
          "para_1092"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "paragraphs": [
      {
        "text": "FOR PUBLICATION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1"
      },
      {
        "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS",
        "paragraph_id": "para_2"
      },
      {
        "text": "FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT",
        "paragraph_id": "para_3"
      },
      {
        "text": "CATHY POVER, individually and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_4"
      },
      {
        "text": "on behalf of all others similarly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_5"
      },
      {
        "text": "situated,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_6"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plaintiff - Appellee,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_7"
      },
      {
        "text": "v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_8"
      },
      {
        "text": "THE CAPITAL GROUP",
        "paragraph_id": "para_9"
      },
      {
        "text": "COMPANIES, INC.; THE BOARD",
        "paragraph_id": "para_10"
      },
      {
        "text": "OF DIRECTORS OF THE",
        "paragraph_id": "para_11"
      },
      {
        "text": "CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_12"
      },
      {
        "text": "INC., and its members; and THE U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_13"
      },
      {
        "text": "RETIREMENT BENEFITS",
        "paragraph_id": "para_14"
      },
      {
        "text": "COMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_15"
      },
      {
        "text": "GROUP COMPANIES INC., and its",
        "paragraph_id": "para_16"
      },
      {
        "text": "members, Does 1–30,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_17"
      },
      {
        "text": "Defendants - Appellants.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_18"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 24-5298",
        "paragraph_id": "para_19"
      },
      {
        "text": "D.C. No.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_20"
      },
      {
        "text": "2:23-cv-09657-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_21"
      },
      {
        "text": "GW-PVC",
        "paragraph_id": "para_22"
      },
      {
        "text": "OPINION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_23"
      },
      {
        "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_24"
      },
      {
        "text": "for the Central District of California",
        "paragraph_id": "para_25"
      },
      {
        "text": "George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding",
        "paragraph_id": "para_26"
      },
      {
        "text": "Argued and Submitted August 11, 2025",
        "paragraph_id": "para_27"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pasadena, California",
        "paragraph_id": "para_28"
      },
      {
        "text": "Filed July 30, 2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_29"
      },
      {
        "text": "2 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_30"
      },
      {
        "text": "Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Danielle J. Forrest, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_31"
      },
      {
        "text": "Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_32"
      },
      {
        "text": "Opinion by Judge Forrest;",
        "paragraph_id": "para_33"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dissent by Judge VanDyke",
        "paragraph_id": "para_34"
      },
      {
        "text": "SUMMARY*",
        "paragraph_id": "para_35"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA/Arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_36"
      },
      {
        "text": "The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_37"
      },
      {
        "text": "defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a case in which",
        "paragraph_id": "para_38"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cathy Pover sued her former employer, The Capital Group",
        "paragraph_id": "para_39"
      },
      {
        "text": "Companies, Inc., and its fiduciaries on behalf of her",
        "paragraph_id": "para_40"
      },
      {
        "text": "employer’s retirement-savings plan, The Capital Retirement",
        "paragraph_id": "para_41"
      },
      {
        "text": "Savings Plan (the Plan), alleging that the fiduciaries",
        "paragraph_id": "para_42"
      },
      {
        "text": "mismanaged the Plan’s investments.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_43"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Plan is covered by the Employee Retirement Income",
        "paragraph_id": "para_44"
      },
      {
        "text": "Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which permits plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_45"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants to seek relief on a plan’s behalf for breach of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_46"
      },
      {
        "text": "duties owed by the plan’s fiduciaries. The Plan contract",
        "paragraph_id": "para_47"
      },
      {
        "text": "included an arbitration requirement and a waiver by plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_48"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants of any claims brought on “a class, collective, or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_49"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative basis.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_50"
      },
      {
        "text": "The panel considered the interaction between ERISA,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_51"
      },
      {
        "text": "which entitles plan participants to sue for mismanagement of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_52"
      },
      {
        "text": "their retirement plan, and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),",
        "paragraph_id": "para_53"
      },
      {
        "text": "* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has",
        "paragraph_id": "para_54"
      },
      {
        "text": "been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_55"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 3",
        "paragraph_id": "para_56"
      },
      {
        "text": "which requires courts to enforce valid agreements to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_57"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrate. At the intersection of these statutes is the judicially",
        "paragraph_id": "para_58"
      },
      {
        "text": "created effective-vindication doctrine that renders",
        "paragraph_id": "para_59"
      },
      {
        "text": "unenforceable arbitration agreements that prevent the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_60"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication of statutorily protected rights and remedies.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_61"
      },
      {
        "text": "Because the Plan’s waiver provision forbids Pover from",
        "paragraph_id": "para_62"
      },
      {
        "text": "asserting her rights under ERISA to sue as a representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_63"
      },
      {
        "text": "of the Plan for Plan-wide relief, the panel agreed with the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_64"
      },
      {
        "text": "district court that the waiver is unenforceable under the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_65"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine. Pover alleges fiduciary",
        "paragraph_id": "para_66"
      },
      {
        "text": "breaches that fall squarely within the category of duties that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_67"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA § 409 imposes on plan fiduciaries, and under ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_68"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 502(a)(2), Pover is entitled to bring an action on behalf of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_69"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan to recover any resulting losses as well as such other",
        "paragraph_id": "para_70"
      },
      {
        "text": "equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem",
        "paragraph_id": "para_71"
      },
      {
        "text": "appropriate. The Plan’s representative-action waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_72"
      },
      {
        "text": "prevents Pover from enforcing her substantive rights under",
        "paragraph_id": "para_73"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA because her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims can",
        "paragraph_id": "para_74"
      },
      {
        "text": "only be brought in a representative capacity. Accordingly,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_75"
      },
      {
        "text": "the waiver is unenforceable under the effective-vindication",
        "paragraph_id": "para_76"
      },
      {
        "text": "doctrine.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_77"
      },
      {
        "text": "Addressing the severability of the waiver and arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_78"
      },
      {
        "text": "provisions, the panel concluded that Pover’s breach-of-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_79"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciary duty claims must be adjudicated in court rather",
        "paragraph_id": "para_80"
      },
      {
        "text": "than arbitration because the Plan’s waiver provision",
        "paragraph_id": "para_81"
      },
      {
        "text": "expressly provides that if it “is found to be unenforceable by",
        "paragraph_id": "para_82"
      },
      {
        "text": "a court of competent jurisdiction, then any claim on a class,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_83"
      },
      {
        "text": "collective, or representative basis shall be filed and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_84"
      },
      {
        "text": "adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction, and not in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_85"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_86"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dissenting, Judge VanDyke wrote that the majority errs",
        "paragraph_id": "para_87"
      },
      {
        "text": "twice over in finding the arbitration clause unenforceable.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_88"
      },
      {
        "text": "4 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_89"
      },
      {
        "text": "On the merits, he would hold that the bar on “representative”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_90"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits in the arbitration clause’s class-action waiver does not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_91"
      },
      {
        "text": "refer to third-party suits on behalf of the Plan. When read in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_92"
      },
      {
        "text": "context, that phrase refers to class action or collective",
        "paragraph_id": "para_93"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” suits only, not principal-agent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_94"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative suits like section 502(a)(2) ERISA claims.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_95"
      },
      {
        "text": "But the panel should not have even reached the issue of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_96"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability because the parties expressly agreed to allow an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_97"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_98"
      },
      {
        "text": "expressing their desire to keep courts out of this dispute.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_99"
      },
      {
        "text": "Although Capital failed to make that argument before the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_100"
      },
      {
        "text": "district court, its failure to do so falls squarely within the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_101"
      },
      {
        "text": "exceptions to waiver. Judge VanDyke would have waived",
        "paragraph_id": "para_102"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver and sent the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_103"
      },
      {
        "text": "COUNSEL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_104"
      },
      {
        "text": "Charles H. Field Jr. (argued), Hilary R. Rosenthal, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_105"
      },
      {
        "text": "Myounghee Choung, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_106"
      },
      {
        "text": "La Jolla, California; David B. McNamee, Kristi Stahnke",
        "paragraph_id": "para_107"
      },
      {
        "text": "McGregor, and Kevin H. Sharp, Sanford Heisler Sharp",
        "paragraph_id": "para_108"
      },
      {
        "text": "McKnight LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Sharon Kim, Sanford",
        "paragraph_id": "para_109"
      },
      {
        "text": "Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP, New York, New York;",
        "paragraph_id": "para_110"
      },
      {
        "text": "Hampton M. Watson, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight",
        "paragraph_id": "para_111"
      },
      {
        "text": "LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_112"
      },
      {
        "text": "Parker A. Rider-Longmaid (argued) and Shay Dvoretzky,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_113"
      },
      {
        "text": "Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_114"
      },
      {
        "text": "D.C.; Michael S. Hines, Mary E. Grinman, and James R.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_115"
      },
      {
        "text": "Carroll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_116"
      },
      {
        "text": "Massachusetts; Jeremy Patashnik, Skadden Arps Slate",
        "paragraph_id": "para_117"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 5",
        "paragraph_id": "para_118"
      },
      {
        "text": "Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, New York; Jason D.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_119"
      },
      {
        "text": "Russell, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Los",
        "paragraph_id": "para_120"
      },
      {
        "text": "Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellants.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_121"
      },
      {
        "text": "Leah M. Nicholls, Public Justice PC, Washington, D.C., for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_122"
      },
      {
        "text": "Amicus Curiae Public Justice.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_123"
      },
      {
        "text": "OPINION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_124"
      },
      {
        "text": "FORREST, Circuit Judge:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_125"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cathy Pover sued her former employer, The Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_126"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group Companies, Inc., and its fiduciaries on behalf of her",
        "paragraph_id": "para_127"
      },
      {
        "text": "employer’s retirement-savings plan for the fiduciaries’",
        "paragraph_id": "para_128"
      },
      {
        "text": "mismanagement of the plan’s investments. The plan is",
        "paragraph_id": "para_129"
      },
      {
        "text": "covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act",
        "paragraph_id": "para_130"
      },
      {
        "text": "of 1974 (ERISA), which permits plan participants to seek",
        "paragraph_id": "para_131"
      },
      {
        "text": "relief on a plan’s behalf for breach of the duties owed by the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_132"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan’s fiduciaries. However, the plan contract included an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_133"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration requirement and a waiver by plan participants of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_134"
      },
      {
        "text": "any claims brought on “a class, collective, or representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_135"
      },
      {
        "text": "basis.” Because this waiver provision forbids Pover from",
        "paragraph_id": "para_136"
      },
      {
        "text": "asserting her rights under ERISA to sue as a representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_137"
      },
      {
        "text": "of the plan for plan-wide relief, we agree with the district",
        "paragraph_id": "para_138"
      },
      {
        "text": "court that the waiver is unenforceable under the effective-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_139"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication doctrine, and we affirm the district court’s denial",
        "paragraph_id": "para_140"
      },
      {
        "text": "of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_141"
      },
      {
        "text": "6 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_142"
      },
      {
        "text": "BACKGROUND",
        "paragraph_id": "para_143"
      },
      {
        "text": "A. The Plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_144"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group is a global asset manager that sponsors a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_145"
      },
      {
        "text": "retirement plan for its current and former employees known",
        "paragraph_id": "para_146"
      },
      {
        "text": "as The Capital Retirement Savings Plan (Plan). The Plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_147"
      },
      {
        "text": "allows each participant to maintain an individual account",
        "paragraph_id": "para_148"
      },
      {
        "text": "funded by contributions from each participant and Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_149"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group, as well as the participant’s investment earnings. The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_150"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants may direct how their individual accounts are",
        "paragraph_id": "para_151"
      },
      {
        "text": "invested by selecting from a menu of investment options",
        "paragraph_id": "para_152"
      },
      {
        "text": "provided by the Plan. Capital Group collects a transaction",
        "paragraph_id": "para_153"
      },
      {
        "text": "fee from the investment funds included in the Plan’s menu.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_154"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Plan is a “defined contribution plan.” The Supreme",
        "paragraph_id": "para_155"
      },
      {
        "text": "Court has explained that “a ‘defined contribution plan’ or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_156"
      },
      {
        "text": "‘individual account plan’ promises the participant the value",
        "paragraph_id": "para_157"
      },
      {
        "text": "of an individual account at retirement, which is largely a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_158"
      },
      {
        "text": "function of the amounts contributed to that account and the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_159"
      },
      {
        "text": "investment performance of those contributions.” LaRue v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_160"
      },
      {
        "text": "DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 250 n.1",
        "paragraph_id": "para_161"
      },
      {
        "text": "(2008). A “defined benefit plan,” in contrast, “promises the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_162"
      },
      {
        "text": "participant a fixed level of retirement income, which is",
        "paragraph_id": "para_163"
      },
      {
        "text": "typically based on the employee’s years of service and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_164"
      },
      {
        "text": "compensation.” Id. While defined-benefit plans were once",
        "paragraph_id": "para_165"
      },
      {
        "text": "“the norm,” defined-contribution plans have become the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_166"
      },
      {
        "text": "leading form of private retirement-plan offerings. See id. at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_167"
      },
      {
        "text": "255 (citation omitted).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_168"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Plan is governed by ERISA and the terms of its Plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_169"
      },
      {
        "text": "Document. According to the Plan Document, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_170"
      },
      {
        "text": "Administrative Committee serves as the Plan’s fiduciary and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_171"
      },
      {
        "text": "may amend or modify the Plan. As relevant here, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_172"
      },
      {
        "text": "Committee amended the Plan before this litigation by adding",
        "paragraph_id": "para_173"
      },
      {
        "text": "two provisions related to dispute resolution: (1) an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_174"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 7",
        "paragraph_id": "para_175"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration requirement and (2) a waiver of class, collective,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_176"
      },
      {
        "text": "and representative actions. The arbitration requirement",
        "paragraph_id": "para_177"
      },
      {
        "text": "dictates that “[a]ny claim, controversy or alleged breach or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_178"
      },
      {
        "text": "violation of law that arises out of or relates in any way to the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_179"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan or a claimant’s participation in the Plan and seeks a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_180"
      },
      {
        "text": "remedy, ruling or judgment of any kind against the Plan”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_181"
      },
      {
        "text": "must be resolved in arbitration. And the waiver provision",
        "paragraph_id": "para_182"
      },
      {
        "text": "states:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_183"
      },
      {
        "text": "A Participant, former Participant, or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_184"
      },
      {
        "text": "Beneficiary must bring any dispute in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_185"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration on an individual basis only, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_186"
      },
      {
        "text": "not on a class, collective or representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_187"
      },
      {
        "text": "basis and must waive the right to commence,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_188"
      },
      {
        "text": "be a party to, or be an actual or putative class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_189"
      },
      {
        "text": "member of any class, collective, or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_190"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative action arising out of or relating",
        "paragraph_id": "para_191"
      },
      {
        "text": "to the Plan, including, but not limited to, any",
        "paragraph_id": "para_192"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims related to the Plan.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_193"
      },
      {
        "text": "The waiver also specifies that if it “is found to be",
        "paragraph_id": "para_194"
      },
      {
        "text": "unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then any",
        "paragraph_id": "para_195"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim on a class, collective, or representative basis shall be",
        "paragraph_id": "para_196"
      },
      {
        "text": "filed and adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_197"
      },
      {
        "text": "and not in arbitration.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_198"
      },
      {
        "text": "B. The Lawsuit",
        "paragraph_id": "para_199"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover sued Capital Group, the Committee, Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_200"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group’s Board of Directors, and other fiduciaries",
        "paragraph_id": "para_201"
      },
      {
        "text": "responsible for controlling and managing the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_202"
      },
      {
        "text": "investments (hereinafter, collectively, Capital Group). She",
        "paragraph_id": "para_203"
      },
      {
        "text": "alleged that Capital Group breached its fiduciary duties to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_204"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan by retaining certain investment options for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_205"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants despite their poor performance. Pover further",
        "paragraph_id": "para_206"
      },
      {
        "text": "8 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_207"
      },
      {
        "text": "alleged that Capital Group knew certain investment funds",
        "paragraph_id": "para_208"
      },
      {
        "text": "were underperforming but retained them in its offerings to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_209"
      },
      {
        "text": "collect the substantial transaction fees generated by the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_210"
      },
      {
        "text": "funds. She asserted that Capital Group’s failure to remove",
        "paragraph_id": "para_211"
      },
      {
        "text": "these funds from the Plan’s investment menu violated its",
        "paragraph_id": "para_212"
      },
      {
        "text": "duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan, and that Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_213"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group failed to monitor its delegees, further harming the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_214"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_215"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover sued Capital Group “in a representative capacity",
        "paragraph_id": "para_216"
      },
      {
        "text": "on behalf of the Plan . . . , seeking appropriate relief . . . to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_217"
      },
      {
        "text": "protect the interests of the entire Plan.” She sought several",
        "paragraph_id": "para_218"
      },
      {
        "text": "forms of plan-wide monetary and equitable relief provided",
        "paragraph_id": "para_219"
      },
      {
        "text": "under ERISA. Among these, declarations that the Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_220"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group fiduciaries breached their duties owed to the Plan and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_221"
      },
      {
        "text": "“are personally liable to make good to the Plan”; “restitution",
        "paragraph_id": "para_222"
      },
      {
        "text": "and disgorgement”; and an order (1) requiring the Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_223"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group’s fiduciaries to pay “the losses resulting from each",
        "paragraph_id": "para_224"
      },
      {
        "text": "breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plan” any lost",
        "paragraph_id": "para_225"
      },
      {
        "text": "profits, (2) removing Plan fiduciaries found to have",
        "paragraph_id": "para_226"
      },
      {
        "text": "breached their duties and enjoining them from future",
        "paragraph_id": "para_227"
      },
      {
        "text": "violations, (3) “reform[ing] the Plan to include only prudent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_228"
      },
      {
        "text": "investments,” and (4) granting all “other equitable or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_229"
      },
      {
        "text": "remedial relief the Court deems appropriate.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_230"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group moved to compel arbitration under the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_231"
      },
      {
        "text": "Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), asserting that Pover is bound",
        "paragraph_id": "para_232"
      },
      {
        "text": "by the Plan’s arbitration requirement. Pover opposed Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_233"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group’s motion, arguing that the Plan’s representative-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_234"
      },
      {
        "text": "action waiver was unenforceable under the effective-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_235"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication doctrine, and arbitration was thus not required,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_236"
      },
      {
        "text": "because the waiver foreclosed her ability to represent the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_237"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan and pursue plan-wide relief on its behalf, undermining",
        "paragraph_id": "para_238"
      },
      {
        "text": "her rights under ERISA. Pover also argued that neither she",
        "paragraph_id": "para_239"
      },
      {
        "text": "nor the Plan had agreed to arbitrate future claims against",
        "paragraph_id": "para_240"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 9",
        "paragraph_id": "para_241"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group. Finally, Pover contended that the arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_242"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision is unconscionable and non-severable.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_243"
      },
      {
        "text": "The district court denied Capital Group’s motion to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_244"
      },
      {
        "text": "compel arbitration. It agreed that the Plan’s representative-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_245"
      },
      {
        "text": "action waiver could not be enforced because it prospectively",
        "paragraph_id": "para_246"
      },
      {
        "text": "waived Pover’s substantive rights and remedies under",
        "paragraph_id": "para_247"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA. The district court explained that ERISA creates a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_248"
      },
      {
        "text": "statutory cause of action allowing plan participants to sue on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_249"
      },
      {
        "text": "behalf of their plan and recover plan-wide monetary and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_250"
      },
      {
        "text": "equitable relief. The court reasoned that Pover’s action was",
        "paragraph_id": "para_251"
      },
      {
        "text": "“necessarily a representative action seeking plan-wide",
        "paragraph_id": "para_252"
      },
      {
        "text": "recovery” and that enforcing the representative-action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_253"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver would prevent her from “bring[ing] any of her claims",
        "paragraph_id": "para_254"
      },
      {
        "text": "in a representative capacity on behalf of the Plan.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_255"
      },
      {
        "text": "Therefore, it held that the waiver was unenforceable. It also",
        "paragraph_id": "para_256"
      },
      {
        "text": "held that the waiver was expressly non-severable because it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_257"
      },
      {
        "text": "required any collective or representative claim to proceed in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_258"
      },
      {
        "text": "court if found unenforceable. Capital Group appealed.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_259"
      },
      {
        "text": "DISCUSSION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_260"
      },
      {
        "text": "We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial",
        "paragraph_id": "para_261"
      },
      {
        "text": "of a motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_262"
      },
      {
        "text": "We review the district court’s decision and its interpretation",
        "paragraph_id": "para_263"
      },
      {
        "text": "of ERISA de novo. Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 928 F.3d",
        "paragraph_id": "para_264"
      },
      {
        "text": "819, 824 (9th Cir. 2019); Stand Up for California! v. U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_265"
      },
      {
        "text": "Dep’t of the Interior, 959 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2020).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_266"
      },
      {
        "text": "To promote uniformity, we interpret the language of ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_267"
      },
      {
        "text": "documents as a matter of federal common law rather than",
        "paragraph_id": "para_268"
      },
      {
        "text": "state law. Mull v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan, 41",
        "paragraph_id": "para_269"
      },
      {
        "text": "F.4th 1120, 1130 n.8 (9th Cir. 2022).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_270"
      },
      {
        "text": "This case requires us to consider the interaction between",
        "paragraph_id": "para_271"
      },
      {
        "text": "two federal statutes: ERISA, which entitles plan participants",
        "paragraph_id": "para_272"
      },
      {
        "text": "to sue for mismanagement of their retirement plan, and the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_273"
      },
      {
        "text": "10 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_274"
      },
      {
        "text": "FAA, which requires courts to enforce valid agreements to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_275"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrate. At the intersection of these statutes is the judicially",
        "paragraph_id": "para_276"
      },
      {
        "text": "created effective-vindication doctrine that renders",
        "paragraph_id": "para_277"
      },
      {
        "text": "unenforceable arbitration agreements that prevent the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_278"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication of statutorily protected rights and remedies. We",
        "paragraph_id": "para_279"
      },
      {
        "text": "begin our analysis by explaining these background legal",
        "paragraph_id": "para_280"
      },
      {
        "text": "principles. We then apply them to determine whether the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_281"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan’s representative-action waiver is enforceable. Because",
        "paragraph_id": "para_282"
      },
      {
        "text": "we conclude that the waiver is not enforceable under the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_283"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine, we need not address Pover’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_284"
      },
      {
        "text": "remaining challenges to arbitration.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_285"
      },
      {
        "text": "A. Legal Principles",
        "paragraph_id": "para_286"
      },
      {
        "text": "1. ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_287"
      },
      {
        "text": "“ERISA is a comprehensive and reticulated statute, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_288"
      },
      {
        "text": "product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_289"
      },
      {
        "text": "private employee benefit system.” Great-W. Life & Annuity",
        "paragraph_id": "para_290"
      },
      {
        "text": "Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 209 (2002) (internal",
        "paragraph_id": "para_291"
      },
      {
        "text": "quotation marks and citation omitted). In this expansive",
        "paragraph_id": "para_292"
      },
      {
        "text": "statutory system, two ERISA sections work together to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_293"
      },
      {
        "text": "provide participants in ERISA-governed plans with a federal",
        "paragraph_id": "para_294"
      },
      {
        "text": "cause of action to enforce the duties owed to the plan by its",
        "paragraph_id": "para_295"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciaries. See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_296"
      },
      {
        "text": "134, 139–40, 142 & n.9 (1985); Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., 148",
        "paragraph_id": "para_297"
      },
      {
        "text": "F.4th 709, 721 (9th Cir. 2025).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_298"
      },
      {
        "text": "First, § 409(a) imposes liability on fiduciaries who",
        "paragraph_id": "para_299"
      },
      {
        "text": "breach their duties to the plan and outlines the remedies",
        "paragraph_id": "para_300"
      },
      {
        "text": "available. See 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). The statute provides:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_301"
      },
      {
        "text": "Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_302"
      },
      {
        "text": "a plan who breaches any of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_303"
      },
      {
        "text": "responsibilities, obligations, or duties",
        "paragraph_id": "para_304"
      },
      {
        "text": "imposed upon fiduciaries by this subchapter",
        "paragraph_id": "para_305"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 11",
        "paragraph_id": "para_306"
      },
      {
        "text": "shall be personally liable to make good to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_307"
      },
      {
        "text": "such plan any losses to the plan resulting",
        "paragraph_id": "para_308"
      },
      {
        "text": "from each such breach, and to restore to such",
        "paragraph_id": "para_309"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan any profits of such fiduciary which have",
        "paragraph_id": "para_310"
      },
      {
        "text": "been made through use of assets of the plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_311"
      },
      {
        "text": "by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such",
        "paragraph_id": "para_312"
      },
      {
        "text": "other equitable or remedial relief as the court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_313"
      },
      {
        "text": "may deem appropriate, including removal of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_314"
      },
      {
        "text": "such fiduciary.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_315"
      },
      {
        "text": "Id. “[T]he principal statutory duties imposed on [fiduciaries]",
        "paragraph_id": "para_316"
      },
      {
        "text": "relate to the proper management, administration, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_317"
      },
      {
        "text": "investment of fund assets, the maintenance of proper",
        "paragraph_id": "para_318"
      },
      {
        "text": "records, the disclosure of specific information, and the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_319"
      },
      {
        "text": "avoidance of conflicts of interest.” Russell, 473 U.S. at 142–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_320"
      },
      {
        "text": "43.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_321"
      },
      {
        "text": "Second, § 502(a)(2) creates the enforcement mechanism.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_322"
      },
      {
        "text": "See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). It provides that “[a] civil action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_323"
      },
      {
        "text": "may be brought . . . by the Secretary [of Labor], or by a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_324"
      },
      {
        "text": "participant, beneficiary or fiduciary for appropriate relief",
        "paragraph_id": "para_325"
      },
      {
        "text": "under” § 409(a). Id. “Section 502(a)(2) thus acts as the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_326"
      },
      {
        "text": "vehicle for plan participants to obtain the relief made",
        "paragraph_id": "para_327"
      },
      {
        "text": "available by § 409(a).” Platt, 148 F.4th at 721.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_328"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Supreme Court has examined how these ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_329"
      },
      {
        "text": "sections operate for breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims brought",
        "paragraph_id": "para_330"
      },
      {
        "text": "by both defined-benefit and defined-contribution plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_331"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants. Russell, 473 U.S. at 136; LaRue, 552 U.S. at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_332"
      },
      {
        "text": "252–56. And it has made clear that, in both contexts,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_333"
      },
      {
        "text": "plaintiffs bringing a claim under § 502(a)(2) proceed on the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_334"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan’s behalf. Russell, 473 U.S. at 142 n.9 (“[A]ctions for",
        "paragraph_id": "para_335"
      },
      {
        "text": "breach of fiduciary duty [under § 502(a)(2) are] brought in a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_336"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative capacity on behalf of the plan as a whole.”);",
        "paragraph_id": "para_337"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 253 (explaining that § 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_338"
      },
      {
        "text": "12 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_339"
      },
      {
        "text": "“authorizes the Secretary of Labor as well as plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_340"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries, to bring actions",
        "paragraph_id": "para_341"
      },
      {
        "text": "on behalf of a plan”).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_342"
      },
      {
        "text": "Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell",
        "paragraph_id": "para_343"
      },
      {
        "text": "dealt with a defined-benefit plan. There, a participant in an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_344"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA-backed employee-benefits plan sued a plan fiduciary",
        "paragraph_id": "para_345"
      },
      {
        "text": "under § 502(a)(2) and sought “extra-contractual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_346"
      },
      {
        "text": "compensatory or punitive damages caused by improper or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_347"
      },
      {
        "text": "untimely processing” of her medical-benefit claim. 473 U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_348"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 136. The plan participant contended that the fiduciaries’",
        "paragraph_id": "para_349"
      },
      {
        "text": "delayed processing of her individual claim caused actionable",
        "paragraph_id": "para_350"
      },
      {
        "text": "harm. See id. at 136–38. The Supreme Court held that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_351"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 502(a)(2) precluded such individualized relief: “A fair",
        "paragraph_id": "para_352"
      },
      {
        "text": "contextual reading of the statute makes it abundantly clear",
        "paragraph_id": "para_353"
      },
      {
        "text": "that its draftsmen were primarily concerned with the possible",
        "paragraph_id": "para_354"
      },
      {
        "text": "misuse of plan assets, and with remedies that would protect",
        "paragraph_id": "para_355"
      },
      {
        "text": "the entire plan, rather than with the rights of an individual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_356"
      },
      {
        "text": "beneficiary.” Id. at 142 (emphasis added). The Court further",
        "paragraph_id": "para_357"
      },
      {
        "text": "noted that “the principal statutory duties” that § 409(a)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_358"
      },
      {
        "text": "imposes on fiduciaries are those “relate[d] to the proper",
        "paragraph_id": "para_359"
      },
      {
        "text": "management, administration, and investment of fund assets,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_360"
      },
      {
        "text": "the maintenance of proper records, the disclosure of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_361"
      },
      {
        "text": "specified information, and the avoidance of conflicts of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_362"
      },
      {
        "text": "interest.” Id. at 142–43. Thus, “the entire text of § 409(a)”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_363"
      },
      {
        "text": "persuaded the Court “that Congress did not intend that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_364"
      },
      {
        "text": "section to authorize relief except for the plan itself.” Id. at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_365"
      },
      {
        "text": "144.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_366"
      },
      {
        "text": "Thirty years later, the Supreme Court revisited",
        "paragraph_id": "para_367"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 502(a)(2) in the context of a defined-contribution plan.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_368"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 250–51. In LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_369"
      },
      {
        "text": "Associates, Inc., a retirement-plan participant alleged that a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_370"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciary had failed to make changes that he directed to his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_371"
      },
      {
        "text": "individual investment portfolio, “‘deplet[ing]’ his interest in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_372"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 13",
        "paragraph_id": "para_373"
      },
      {
        "text": "the [p]lan” and “amount[ing] to a breach of fiduciary duty",
        "paragraph_id": "para_374"
      },
      {
        "text": "under ERISA.” Id. at 251. The plan participant sued seeking",
        "paragraph_id": "para_375"
      },
      {
        "text": "“make-whole” monetary recovery for the alleged breach. Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_376"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Supreme Court held that the misconduct the plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_377"
      },
      {
        "text": "participant alleged concerning the fiduciary’s failure to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_378"
      },
      {
        "text": "maximize the value of his investment account “f[ell]",
        "paragraph_id": "para_379"
      },
      {
        "text": "squarely within th[e] category” of fiduciary duties owed to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_380"
      },
      {
        "text": "the plan that are addressed in § 409(a), id. at 253, because",
        "paragraph_id": "para_381"
      },
      {
        "text": "“trustees are chargeable with any profit which would have",
        "paragraph_id": "para_382"
      },
      {
        "text": "accrued to the trust estate if there had been no breach of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_383"
      },
      {
        "text": "trust,” id. at 253 n.4 (citation modified). In doing so, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_384"
      },
      {
        "text": "Court distinguished its previous language in Russell, which",
        "paragraph_id": "para_385"
      },
      {
        "text": "had recognized that ERISA’s “draftsmen were primarily",
        "paragraph_id": "para_386"
      },
      {
        "text": "concerned . . . with remedies that would protect the entire",
        "paragraph_id": "para_387"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan.” Id. at 254 (quoting Russell, 473 U.S. at 142). The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_388"
      },
      {
        "text": "Court explained that “Russell’s emphasis on protecting the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_389"
      },
      {
        "text": "‘entire plan’ from fiduciary misconduct reflect[ed] the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_390"
      },
      {
        "text": "former landscape of employee benefit plans,” which was",
        "paragraph_id": "para_391"
      },
      {
        "text": "dominated by defined-benefit plans under which",
        "paragraph_id": "para_392"
      },
      {
        "text": "participants’ individual entitlement to benefits was not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_393"
      },
      {
        "text": "threatened unless fiduciary misconduct “risk[s] . . . default",
        "paragraph_id": "para_394"
      },
      {
        "text": "by the entire plan.” Id. at 254–55.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_395"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Court also clarified that in the defined-contribution-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_396"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan context, “fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_397"
      },
      {
        "text": "solvency of the entire plan to reduce [individual] benefits",
        "paragraph_id": "para_398"
      },
      {
        "text": "below the amount that participants would otherwise",
        "paragraph_id": "para_399"
      },
      {
        "text": "receive.” Id. at 255–56. For defined-contribution plans,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_400"
      },
      {
        "text": "“[w]hether a fiduciary breach diminishes plan assets payable",
        "paragraph_id": "para_401"
      },
      {
        "text": "to all participants and beneficiaries, or only to persons tied",
        "paragraph_id": "para_402"
      },
      {
        "text": "to particular individual accounts, it creates the kind of harms",
        "paragraph_id": "para_403"
      },
      {
        "text": "that concerned” ERISA’s draftsmen, making a § 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_404"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim appropriate. Id. at 256. That is, LaRue “recognized that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_405"
      },
      {
        "text": "Section 409(a) protects against breaches of fiduciary duty",
        "paragraph_id": "para_406"
      },
      {
        "text": "14 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_407"
      },
      {
        "text": "involving the management of assets within defined",
        "paragraph_id": "para_408"
      },
      {
        "text": "contribution plans,” regardless of whether the injury is felt",
        "paragraph_id": "para_409"
      },
      {
        "text": "at the plan level or at the individual-account level. Cedeno v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_410"
      },
      {
        "text": "Sasson, 100 F.4th 386, 399 (2d Cir. 2024). In either scenario,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_411"
      },
      {
        "text": "the plaintiff-participant proceeds on behalf of the plan and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_412"
      },
      {
        "text": "the remedies afforded by ERISA benefit the plan. LaRue,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_413"
      },
      {
        "text": "552 U.S. at 253–56; see also Russell, 473 U.S. at 142 n.9;",
        "paragraph_id": "para_414"
      },
      {
        "text": "Munro v. Univ. of S. Cal., 896 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_415"
      },
      {
        "text": "2018) (“[T]he [LaRue] Court made clear that it had not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_416"
      },
      {
        "text": "reconsidered its longstanding recognition that it is the plan,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_417"
      },
      {
        "text": "and not the individual beneficiaries and participants, that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_418"
      },
      {
        "text": "benefit from a winning claim for breach of fiduciary duty,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_419"
      },
      {
        "text": "even when the plan is a defined contribution plan.”).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_420"
      },
      {
        "text": "2. FAA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_421"
      },
      {
        "text": "Congress enacted the FAA in 1925 as a “response to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_422"
      },
      {
        "text": "widespread judicial hostility to arbitration.” Am. Express Co.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_423"
      },
      {
        "text": "v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 232 (2013). The FAA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_424"
      },
      {
        "text": "established “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_425"
      },
      {
        "text": "agreements.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury",
        "paragraph_id": "para_426"
      },
      {
        "text": "Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). It provides that “[a]",
        "paragraph_id": "para_427"
      },
      {
        "text": "written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_428"
      },
      {
        "text": "transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_429"
      },
      {
        "text": "controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_430"
      },
      {
        "text": "transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_431"
      },
      {
        "text": "save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_432"
      },
      {
        "text": "revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_433"
      },
      {
        "text": "Consistent with its underlying purpose, the FAA’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_434"
      },
      {
        "text": "“mandate is to enforce arbitration agreements,” Viking River",
        "paragraph_id": "para_435"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639, 653 (2022) (citation",
        "paragraph_id": "para_436"
      },
      {
        "text": "modified), and to protect parties’ choices for where and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_437"
      },
      {
        "text": "under what procedures to resolve their disputes, id. (“[A]n",
        "paragraph_id": "para_438"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration agreement is ‘a specialized kind of forum-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_439"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 15",
        "paragraph_id": "para_440"
      },
      {
        "text": "selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also",
        "paragraph_id": "para_441"
      },
      {
        "text": "the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute.’” (quoting",
        "paragraph_id": "para_442"
      },
      {
        "text": "Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (1974))).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_443"
      },
      {
        "text": "But there is an exception for arbitration agreements that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_444"
      },
      {
        "text": "purport to waive substantive rights and remedies. See id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_445"
      },
      {
        "text": "This exception is known as the effective-vindication",
        "paragraph_id": "para_446"
      },
      {
        "text": "doctrine. Italian Colors, 570 U.S. at 235.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_447"
      },
      {
        "text": "3. Effective-Vindication Doctrine",
        "paragraph_id": "para_448"
      },
      {
        "text": "An arbitration agreement “does not alter or abridge",
        "paragraph_id": "para_449"
      },
      {
        "text": "substantive rights; it merely changes how those rights will",
        "paragraph_id": "para_450"
      },
      {
        "text": "be processed.” Viking River Cruises, 596 U.S. at 653.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_451"
      },
      {
        "text": "Indeed, “[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party",
        "paragraph_id": "para_452"
      },
      {
        "text": "does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute;",
        "paragraph_id": "para_453"
      },
      {
        "text": "it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_454"
      },
      {
        "text": "judicial, forum.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_455"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985). Thus, where “a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_456"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision in an arbitration agreement forbid[s] the assertion",
        "paragraph_id": "para_457"
      },
      {
        "text": "of certain statutory rights,” preventing the vindication of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_458"
      },
      {
        "text": "those rights, courts will invalidate the provision “on ‘public",
        "paragraph_id": "para_459"
      },
      {
        "text": "policy’ grounds.”1 Italian Colors, 570 U.S. at 235–36.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_460"
      },
      {
        "text": "We recently joined several of our sister circuits in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_461"
      },
      {
        "text": "holding that “arbitration provisions preventing individuals",
        "paragraph_id": "para_462"
      },
      {
        "text": "from obtaining the plan-wide relief available under § 409(a)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_463"
      },
      {
        "text": "1 The Supreme Court has discussed with approval the effective-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_464"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication doctrine and repeatedly recognized that arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_465"
      },
      {
        "text": "provisions may not prevent a party from effectively vindicating statutory",
        "paragraph_id": "para_466"
      },
      {
        "text": "rights and securing statutory remedies. See, e.g., Italian Colors, 570 U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_467"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 235–36; see also Cedeno, 100 F.4th at 396 (collecting cases); Harrison",
        "paragraph_id": "para_468"
      },
      {
        "text": "v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc. Bd. of Dirs., 59 F.4th 1090, 1098 (10th",
        "paragraph_id": "para_469"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cir. 2023) (“[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_470"
      },
      {
        "text": "existence of the effective vindication exception.”). But the Court has yet",
        "paragraph_id": "para_471"
      },
      {
        "text": "to invalidate an arbitration provision based on this doctrine.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_472"
      },
      {
        "text": "16 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_473"
      },
      {
        "text": "violate the effective-vindication doctrine.” Platt, 148 F.4th",
        "paragraph_id": "para_474"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 721; see id. at 721–22 (collecting cases). Platt v. Sodexo,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_475"
      },
      {
        "text": "S.A. involved an arbitration provision in an ERISA-governed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_476"
      },
      {
        "text": "health-insurance plan that “prohibit[ed] claims brought ‘as a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_477"
      },
      {
        "text": "plaintiff or class member in any purported class or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_478"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative proceeding.’” Id. at 715. The plaintiff-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_479"
      },
      {
        "text": "employee sued his employer for breach of fiduciary duties in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_480"
      },
      {
        "text": "violation of § 409(a), and we considered whether the plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_481"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration provision violated the effective-vindication",
        "paragraph_id": "para_482"
      },
      {
        "text": "doctrine by preventing the employee from obtaining the only",
        "paragraph_id": "para_483"
      },
      {
        "text": "relief afforded by § 409(a)—relief for the plan. Id. at 714–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_484"
      },
      {
        "text": "15.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_485"
      },
      {
        "text": "We began our analysis by explaining that the effective-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_486"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication doctrine prevents enforcement of an arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_487"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision “if it ‘operate[s] as a prospective waiver of a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_488"
      },
      {
        "text": "party’s right to pursue statutory remedies,’ including a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_489"
      },
      {
        "text": "prohibition on ‘the assertion of certain statutory rights.’” Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_490"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 721 (alteration in original) (quoting Italian Colors, 570",
        "paragraph_id": "para_491"
      },
      {
        "text": "U.S. at 235–36). We then addressed the same two ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_492"
      },
      {
        "text": "sections at play here, confirming that because § 409(a)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_493"
      },
      {
        "text": "“provides relief ‘singularly to the plan’ rather than an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_494"
      },
      {
        "text": "individual plaintiff, § 502(a)(2) claims asserting breach of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_495"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciary duty actionable under § 409(a) are understood as",
        "paragraph_id": "para_496"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims ‘brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_497"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan as a whole.’” Id. (quoting Russell, 473 U.S. at 142 &",
        "paragraph_id": "para_498"
      },
      {
        "text": "n.9). And we concluded that because the arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_499"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision prohibited claims brought “in any . . .",
        "paragraph_id": "para_500"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative proceeding,” it was unenforceable because it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_501"
      },
      {
        "text": "precluded the plaintiff “from bringing claims in a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_502"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative capacity on the Plan’s behalf” and “from",
        "paragraph_id": "para_503"
      },
      {
        "text": "obtaining the plan-wide relief available under § 409(a).” Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_504"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 715, 721.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_505"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 17",
        "paragraph_id": "para_506"
      },
      {
        "text": "B. Application",
        "paragraph_id": "para_507"
      },
      {
        "text": "With this legal backdrop, we consider whether the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_508"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative-action waiver violates the effective-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_509"
      },
      {
        "text": "vindication doctrine.2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_510"
      },
      {
        "text": "1. Representative-Action Waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_511"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover’s complaint makes clear that she seeks to represent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_512"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan and to pursue the full extent of plan-wide relief",
        "paragraph_id": "para_513"
      },
      {
        "text": "available under ERISA. The complaint cites § 502(a)(2),",
        "paragraph_id": "para_514"
      },
      {
        "text": "noting that the statute “authorizes any participant or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_515"
      },
      {
        "text": "beneficiary of the Plan to bring an action individually on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_516"
      },
      {
        "text": "behalf of the Plan to enforce a breaching fiduciary’s liability",
        "paragraph_id": "para_517"
      },
      {
        "text": "to the plan” under § 409(a). And it states that Pover seeks to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_518"
      },
      {
        "text": "“act[] in this representative capacity.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_519"
      },
      {
        "text": "The complaint also outlines a spectrum of both monetary",
        "paragraph_id": "para_520"
      },
      {
        "text": "recovery and equitable remedies sought that would",
        "paragraph_id": "para_521"
      },
      {
        "text": "necessarily affect the entire Plan. For example, Pover seeks",
        "paragraph_id": "para_522"
      },
      {
        "text": "a court order requiring that the breaching fiduciaries “make",
        "paragraph_id": "para_523"
      },
      {
        "text": "good to the Plan as a whole the losses resulting from each",
        "paragraph_id": "para_524"
      },
      {
        "text": "breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plan any profits",
        "paragraph_id": "para_525"
      },
      {
        "text": "resulting from each breach.” And as equitable remedies,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_526"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover requests restitution, disgorgement, removal of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_527"
      },
      {
        "text": "breaching fiduciaries, reformation of the Plan, and “such",
        "paragraph_id": "para_528"
      },
      {
        "text": "other equitable or remedial relief as the Court deems",
        "paragraph_id": "para_529"
      },
      {
        "text": "appropriate.” The requested relief can only be interpreted as",
        "paragraph_id": "para_530"
      },
      {
        "text": "seeking recovery that would “inure[] to the benefit of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_531"
      },
      {
        "text": "2 Capital Group argues, for the first time on appeal, that the parties",
        "paragraph_id": "para_532"
      },
      {
        "text": "delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Pover contends that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_533"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group forfeited this argument by not raising it in the district",
        "paragraph_id": "para_534"
      },
      {
        "text": "court. While we have discretion to ignore a party’s forfeiture in certain",
        "paragraph_id": "para_535"
      },
      {
        "text": "circumstances, see Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318, 1322",
        "paragraph_id": "para_536"
      },
      {
        "text": "(9th Cir. 2012), we decline to do so here.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_537"
      },
      {
        "text": "18 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_538"
      },
      {
        "text": "[P]lan as a whole.” See Russell, 473 U.S. at 140; see also",
        "paragraph_id": "para_539"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 253–54.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_540"
      },
      {
        "text": "To determine whether the representative-action waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_541"
      },
      {
        "text": "bars Pover’s claims, we must answer two questions:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_542"
      },
      {
        "text": "(1) whether the waiver prevents Pover from bringing claims",
        "paragraph_id": "para_543"
      },
      {
        "text": "on behalf of the Plan and (2) whether ERISA limits a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_544"
      },
      {
        "text": "participant in a defined-contribution plan to seeking",
        "paragraph_id": "para_545"
      },
      {
        "text": "monetary recovery related only to her individual account.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_546"
      },
      {
        "text": "i.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_547"
      },
      {
        "text": "The Plan’s waiver provision prohibits current and former",
        "paragraph_id": "para_548"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan participants, including Pover, from “bring[ing] any",
        "paragraph_id": "para_549"
      },
      {
        "text": "dispute . . . on a class, collective or representative basis.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_550"
      },
      {
        "text": "Participants may bring disputes “on an individual basis",
        "paragraph_id": "para_551"
      },
      {
        "text": "only.” Capital Group argues that “representative,” as used in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_552"
      },
      {
        "text": "this provision, refers only to collective actions, not to actions",
        "paragraph_id": "para_553"
      },
      {
        "text": "brought by a plan participant on behalf of the Plan. Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_554"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group is correct that the Supreme Court has recognized that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_555"
      },
      {
        "text": "the word “representative” has two different meanings: one",
        "paragraph_id": "para_556"
      },
      {
        "text": "referring to a plaintiff’s statutory authority to sue on behalf",
        "paragraph_id": "para_557"
      },
      {
        "text": "of an absent principal, and the other referring to a plaintiff’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_558"
      },
      {
        "text": "representation of a group of potential claimants. Viking River",
        "paragraph_id": "para_559"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cruises, 596 U.S. at 648. We have held that § 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_560"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims asserting breach of fiduciary duty are always",
        "paragraph_id": "para_561"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” in the first sense because the participant-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_562"
      },
      {
        "text": "plaintiff “seeks recovery only for injury done to the plan.”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_563"
      },
      {
        "text": "Munro, 896 F.3d at 1092–93 (citing LaRue, 552 U.S. at 256).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_564"
      },
      {
        "text": "Consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance, Munro",
        "paragraph_id": "para_565"
      },
      {
        "text": "recognized that even though “the cause of action” under",
        "paragraph_id": "para_566"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 502(a)(2) “belong[s] to the individual plaintiff,” id. at 1093",
        "paragraph_id": "para_567"
      },
      {
        "text": "(alteration in original) (quoting Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436",
        "paragraph_id": "para_568"
      },
      {
        "text": "F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)), the relief afforded by",
        "paragraph_id": "para_569"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA benefits the plan, id. at 1094; see also Hawkins v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_570"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 19",
        "paragraph_id": "para_571"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cintas Corp., 32 F.4th 625, 632 (6th Cir. 2022) (following",
        "paragraph_id": "para_572"
      },
      {
        "text": "Munro); Williams v. Shapiro, 161 F.4th 1313, 1322 (11th",
        "paragraph_id": "para_573"
      },
      {
        "text": "Cir. 2025).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_574"
      },
      {
        "text": "Thus, the representative nature of Pover’s claim is clear.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_575"
      },
      {
        "text": "The remaining question is simply how to interpret",
        "paragraph_id": "para_576"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative,” as used in the waiver. On this, our decision",
        "paragraph_id": "para_577"
      },
      {
        "text": "in Platt controls. The arbitration provision there prohibited",
        "paragraph_id": "para_578"
      },
      {
        "text": "“any purported class or representative proceeding.” Platt,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_579"
      },
      {
        "text": "148 F.4th at 715. We held that language to be a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_580"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative action waiver” that prevented the plaintiff",
        "paragraph_id": "para_581"
      },
      {
        "text": "“from bringing claims in a representative capacity on the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_582"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan’s behalf.” Id. at 721. There is no meaningful difference",
        "paragraph_id": "para_583"
      },
      {
        "text": "between the prohibition against “any purported class or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_584"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative proceeding” in Platt, and the prohibition",
        "paragraph_id": "para_585"
      },
      {
        "text": "against any claim brought on a “class, collective or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_586"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative basis” here. See id. at 715. If the former",
        "paragraph_id": "para_587"
      },
      {
        "text": "prevents a plaintiff from pursuing those “remedies that were",
        "paragraph_id": "para_588"
      },
      {
        "text": "specifically authorized by Congress,” in violation of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_589"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine, then so does the latter.3 See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_590"
      },
      {
        "text": "id. at 721 (quoting Harrison v. Envision Mgmt. Holding, Inc.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_591"
      },
      {
        "text": "Bd. of Dirs., 59 F.4th 1090, 1107 (10th Cir. 2023)).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_592"
      },
      {
        "text": "ii.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_593"
      },
      {
        "text": "Relying on LaRue, Capital Group argues that a defined-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_594"
      },
      {
        "text": "contribution plan participant may nevertheless recover only",
        "paragraph_id": "para_595"
      },
      {
        "text": "those monetary losses suffered by her individual account,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_596"
      },
      {
        "text": "3 We agree with our dissenting colleague that Platt does not “hold that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_597"
      },
      {
        "text": "every arbitration agreement provision with somewhat comparable",
        "paragraph_id": "para_598"
      },
      {
        "text": "language necessarily bars ERISA suits on behalf of a plan and is",
        "paragraph_id": "para_599"
      },
      {
        "text": "therefore invalid under the effective-vindication doctrine.” Dissent at 31.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_600"
      },
      {
        "text": "But we disagree that the difference between the words of the waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_601"
      },
      {
        "text": "provisions at issue in Platt and here is sufficient to warrant a different",
        "paragraph_id": "para_602"
      },
      {
        "text": "outcome.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_603"
      },
      {
        "text": "20 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_604"
      },
      {
        "text": "plus other appropriate equitable relief, which is all",
        "paragraph_id": "para_605"
      },
      {
        "text": "recoverable in individual arbitration under the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_606"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration provisions. Capital Group misunderstands both",
        "paragraph_id": "para_607"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue and ERISA.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_608"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue held that a participant in a defined-contribution",
        "paragraph_id": "para_609"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan can bring a claim under § 502(a)(2) even when the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_610"
      },
      {
        "text": "alleged fiduciary breach impacted only her individual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_611"
      },
      {
        "text": "account. 552 U.S. at 256. But LaRue did not, as Capital",
        "paragraph_id": "para_612"
      },
      {
        "text": "Group suggests, limit plaintiffs participating in defined-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_613"
      },
      {
        "text": "contribution plans to recovering losses suffered only by their",
        "paragraph_id": "para_614"
      },
      {
        "text": "individual accounts. Nor did LaRue “suggest that Section",
        "paragraph_id": "para_615"
      },
      {
        "text": "502(a)(2) allows individualized relief for injuries that are",
        "paragraph_id": "para_616"
      },
      {
        "text": "felt at the plan level.” Cedeno, 100 F.4th at 399. Just the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_617"
      },
      {
        "text": "opposite. LaRue explained, consistent with § 409(a)’s plan-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_618"
      },
      {
        "text": "oriented protections, that participants in defined-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_619"
      },
      {
        "text": "contribution plans can bring a § 502(a)(2) claim to recover",
        "paragraph_id": "para_620"
      },
      {
        "text": "for financial harm suffered plan-wide or by individual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_621"
      },
      {
        "text": "accounts because both are plan injuries. See 552 U.S. at 255–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_622"
      },
      {
        "text": "56; see also Munro, 896 F.3d at 1093; Cedeno, 100 F.4th at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_623"
      },
      {
        "text": "399. What § 502(a)(2) does not allow is for a participant",
        "paragraph_id": "para_624"
      },
      {
        "text": "seeking to recover “for individual injuries distinct from plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_625"
      },
      {
        "text": "injuries.” LaRue, 552 U.S. at 256.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_626"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group’s interpretation of LaRue “rests on the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_627"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiction” that because Pover seeks relief related to a defined-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_628"
      },
      {
        "text": "contribution plan, § 502(a)(2) authorizes her to pursue only",
        "paragraph_id": "para_629"
      },
      {
        "text": "her individualized pro rata share of monetary recovery owed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_630"
      },
      {
        "text": "to the Plan while simultaneously obtaining equitable relief",
        "paragraph_id": "para_631"
      },
      {
        "text": "that would affect the entire Plan. See Cedeno, 100 F.4th at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_632"
      },
      {
        "text": "405. ERISA does not allow “a court or arbitral forum to slice",
        "paragraph_id": "para_633"
      },
      {
        "text": "and dice individual plan participants’ and beneficiaries’",
        "paragraph_id": "para_634"
      },
      {
        "text": "injuries resulting from mismanagement by fiduciaries in the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_635"
      },
      {
        "text": "way” that Capital Group suggests. See id. Nor do § 409(a) or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_636"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 502(a)(2) differentiate between monetary and equitable",
        "paragraph_id": "para_637"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 21",
        "paragraph_id": "para_638"
      },
      {
        "text": "relief in a way that can be reconciled with Capital Group’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_639"
      },
      {
        "text": "proposed approach. See id. As such, we join those of our",
        "paragraph_id": "para_640"
      },
      {
        "text": "sister circuits that have rejected the reading of LaRue that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_641"
      },
      {
        "text": "Capital Group advances. See, e.g., id. at 399, 404–06; Parker",
        "paragraph_id": "para_642"
      },
      {
        "text": "v. Tenneco, Inc., 114 F.4th 786, 794–96 (6th Cir. 2024);",
        "paragraph_id": "para_643"
      },
      {
        "text": "Williams, 161 F.4th at 1321–22.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_644"
      },
      {
        "text": "Additionally, while the difference between defined-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_645"
      },
      {
        "text": "benefit and defined-contribution plans motivated LaRue’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_646"
      },
      {
        "text": "narrowing of Russell’s “entire plan” language, this",
        "paragraph_id": "para_647"
      },
      {
        "text": "difference mattered because an account-level injury is only",
        "paragraph_id": "para_648"
      },
      {
        "text": "possible in defined-contribution plans. See LaRue, 552 U.S.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_649"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 255. Recall that in LaRue, the former employee claimed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_650"
      },
      {
        "text": "that the plan fiduciary did not make certain investment",
        "paragraph_id": "para_651"
      },
      {
        "text": "changes to the participant’s account. Id. at 251. Because a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_652"
      },
      {
        "text": "defined-benefit plan does not allow for individualized",
        "paragraph_id": "para_653"
      },
      {
        "text": "investment decisions, neither the breach alleged in LaRue",
        "paragraph_id": "para_654"
      },
      {
        "text": "nor the consequential injury would have been possible. See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_655"
      },
      {
        "text": "id. at 254–56. The analytical difference between Russell and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_656"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue thus turned on the nature of the injury suffered on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_657"
      },
      {
        "text": "account of the plan type, not on the plan type itself. See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_658"
      },
      {
        "text": "LaRue, 552 U.S. at 254–56; Cedeno, 100 F.4th at 399.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_659"
      },
      {
        "text": "Here, Pover alleges fiduciary breaches that harmed the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_660"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan as a whole. For example, she alleges that Capital Group",
        "paragraph_id": "para_661"
      },
      {
        "text": "retained a set of five mutual funds among its menu of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_662"
      },
      {
        "text": "investment options despite knowing they were",
        "paragraph_id": "para_663"
      },
      {
        "text": "underperforming because they generated millions in “fee",
        "paragraph_id": "para_664"
      },
      {
        "text": "income” instead of replacing those funds “with any one of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_665"
      },
      {
        "text": "the many prudent alternatives.” This alleged breach “falls",
        "paragraph_id": "para_666"
      },
      {
        "text": "squarely within th[e] category” of duties that § 409(a)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_667"
      },
      {
        "text": "imposes on plan fiduciaries. See LaRue, 552 U.S. at 253; see",
        "paragraph_id": "para_668"
      },
      {
        "text": "also Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 511–12 (1996)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_669"
      },
      {
        "text": "(noting that § 409(a)’s fiduciary obligations “reflect[] a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_670"
      },
      {
        "text": "special congressional concern about plan asset",
        "paragraph_id": "para_671"
      },
      {
        "text": "22 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_672"
      },
      {
        "text": "management” and “relate[] to the plan’s financial integrity”).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_673"
      },
      {
        "text": "And under § 502(a)(2), Pover is entitled to bring an action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_674"
      },
      {
        "text": "on behalf of the Plan to recover any resulting losses, as well",
        "paragraph_id": "para_675"
      },
      {
        "text": "as “such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may",
        "paragraph_id": "para_676"
      },
      {
        "text": "deem appropriate.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a), 1132(a)(2).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_677"
      },
      {
        "text": "For these reasons, we conclude that the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_678"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative-action waiver prevents Pover from enforcing",
        "paragraph_id": "para_679"
      },
      {
        "text": "her substantive rights under ERISA because her breach-of-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_680"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciary-duty claims can only be brought in a representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_681"
      },
      {
        "text": "capacity. Accordingly, the waiver is unenforceable under the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_682"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_683"
      },
      {
        "text": "2. Severability",
        "paragraph_id": "para_684"
      },
      {
        "text": "Having concluded that the representative-action waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_685"
      },
      {
        "text": "is unenforceable, our last question is whether this provision",
        "paragraph_id": "para_686"
      },
      {
        "text": "may be severed from the Plan’s arbitration provision. See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_687"
      },
      {
        "text": "Viking River Cruises, 596 U.S. at 662. This answer is easy.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_688"
      },
      {
        "text": "The waiver provision expressly provides that if it “is found",
        "paragraph_id": "para_689"
      },
      {
        "text": "to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_690"
      },
      {
        "text": "then any claim on a class, collective, or representative basis",
        "paragraph_id": "para_691"
      },
      {
        "text": "shall be filed and adjudicated in a court of competent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_692"
      },
      {
        "text": "jurisdiction, and not in arbitration.” Here, where there is no",
        "paragraph_id": "para_693"
      },
      {
        "text": "illegality in the severance clause itself, we enforce the Plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_694"
      },
      {
        "text": "as written. See Mull, 41 F.4th at 1132. Pover’s breach-of-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_695"
      },
      {
        "text": "fiduciary duty claims must be adjudicated in court rather",
        "paragraph_id": "para_696"
      },
      {
        "text": "than arbitration.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_697"
      },
      {
        "text": "AFFIRMED.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_698"
      },
      {
        "text": "VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_699"
      },
      {
        "text": "The majority errs twice over in finding the arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_700"
      },
      {
        "text": "clause unenforceable. On the merits, I would hold that the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_701"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 23",
        "paragraph_id": "para_702"
      },
      {
        "text": "bar on “representative” suits in the arbitration clause’s class-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_703"
      },
      {
        "text": "action waiver does not refer to third-party suits on behalf of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_704"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan. When read in context, that phrase refers to class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_705"
      },
      {
        "text": "action or collective “representative” suits only, not principal-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_706"
      },
      {
        "text": "agent representative suits like section 502(a)(2) ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_707"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims. That means it does not prevent Pover from bringing",
        "paragraph_id": "para_708"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims on behalf of the Plan in arbitration and therefore does",
        "paragraph_id": "para_709"
      },
      {
        "text": "not interfere with Pover’s substantive rights to bring",
        "paragraph_id": "para_710"
      },
      {
        "text": "section 502(a)(2) ERISA claims.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_711"
      },
      {
        "text": "But we should not have even reached the issue of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_712"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability. The parties expressly agreed to allow an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_713"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_714"
      },
      {
        "text": "expressing their desire to keep courts out of this dispute.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_715"
      },
      {
        "text": "Although Capital failed to make that argument before the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_716"
      },
      {
        "text": "district court, its failure to do so falls squarely within our",
        "paragraph_id": "para_717"
      },
      {
        "text": "exceptions to waiver. Consistent with the parties’ express",
        "paragraph_id": "para_718"
      },
      {
        "text": "intent, I would have waived waiver and sent the question of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_719"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability to the arbitrator.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_720"
      },
      {
        "text": "I. The majority errs by holding the class-action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_721"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver unenforceable.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_722"
      },
      {
        "text": "The majority explains (1) that in a section 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_723"
      },
      {
        "text": "ERISA claim, the plaintiff proceeds on behalf of the plan and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_724"
      },
      {
        "text": "the remedies afforded by ERISA benefit the plan, Majority",
        "paragraph_id": "para_725"
      },
      {
        "text": "Op. at 14; (2) that Pover “seeks to represent the Plan” and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_726"
      },
      {
        "text": "pursues “plan-wide relief,” id. at 17; (3) that Pover seeks",
        "paragraph_id": "para_727"
      },
      {
        "text": "“monetary recovery and equitable remedies … that would",
        "paragraph_id": "para_728"
      },
      {
        "text": "necessarily affect the entire Plan,” id. at 17; and (4) that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_729"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover can bring a section 502(a)(2) claim to recover for both",
        "paragraph_id": "para_730"
      },
      {
        "text": "“financial harm suffered plan-wide” and harm to her",
        "paragraph_id": "para_731"
      },
      {
        "text": "“individual account[],” id. at 19, as well as “such other",
        "paragraph_id": "para_732"
      },
      {
        "text": "equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem",
        "paragraph_id": "para_733"
      },
      {
        "text": "24 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_734"
      },
      {
        "text": "appropriate,” id. at 22 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a)). I agree",
        "paragraph_id": "para_735"
      },
      {
        "text": "with the majority on all four points.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_736"
      },
      {
        "text": "The critical question here, though, is whether the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_737"
      },
      {
        "text": "ban on “class, collective or representative” suits prevents",
        "paragraph_id": "para_738"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover from bringing section 502(a)(2) claims on behalf of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_739"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan. If it did, then the majority’s bottom-line conclusion",
        "paragraph_id": "para_740"
      },
      {
        "text": "would be right: the arbitration agreement would prevent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_741"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover from exercising her statutory right to bring",
        "paragraph_id": "para_742"
      },
      {
        "text": "section 502(a)(2) claims on behalf of the Plan in arbitration,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_743"
      },
      {
        "text": "and we would need to allow this lawsuit to proceed.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_744"
      },
      {
        "text": "The majority devotes little attention to this crucial",
        "paragraph_id": "para_745"
      },
      {
        "text": "question. In context, the most sensible reading of what the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_746"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration agreement calls a “class action waiver” is that it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_747"
      },
      {
        "text": "bars class or collective “representative” actions, not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_748"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” suits on behalf of the Plan. Because there",
        "paragraph_id": "para_749"
      },
      {
        "text": "is nothing in the arbitration agreement that prevents Pover",
        "paragraph_id": "para_750"
      },
      {
        "text": "from arbitrating her claim on behalf of the Plan, we should",
        "paragraph_id": "para_751"
      },
      {
        "text": "have enforced that agreement and directed the district court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_752"
      },
      {
        "text": "to compel arbitration.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_753"
      },
      {
        "text": "A. The class-action waiver does not foreclose suits on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_754"
      },
      {
        "text": "behalf of the Plan.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_755"
      },
      {
        "text": "To understand the interpretive dispute here, it’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_756"
      },
      {
        "text": "important to grasp that not all “representative” suits are the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_757"
      },
      {
        "text": "same. The Supreme Court conceives of two different",
        "paragraph_id": "para_758"
      },
      {
        "text": "categories of “representative” suits in the arbitration context:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_759"
      },
      {
        "text": "(1) collective-action suits where a putative plaintiff",
        "paragraph_id": "para_760"
      },
      {
        "text": "“represents” a class of similarly situated individuals, and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_761"
      },
      {
        "text": "(2) principal-agent suits where the putative plaintiff",
        "paragraph_id": "para_762"
      },
      {
        "text": "“represents” a wholly different entity separate from the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_763"
      },
      {
        "text": "plaintiff. See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596",
        "paragraph_id": "para_764"
      },
      {
        "text": "U.S. 639, 648 (2022). Rule 23 class actions provide the most",
        "paragraph_id": "para_765"
      },
      {
        "text": "obvious example of the first category, where a plaintiff sues",
        "paragraph_id": "para_766"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 25",
        "paragraph_id": "para_767"
      },
      {
        "text": "not just on his own behalf but also on behalf of other,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_768"
      },
      {
        "text": "similarly situated plaintiffs.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_769"
      },
      {
        "text": "But the second, “principal-agent” category encompasses",
        "paragraph_id": "para_770"
      },
      {
        "text": "actions brought by an individual on behalf of a different",
        "paragraph_id": "para_771"
      },
      {
        "text": "entity altogether, like a qui tam action,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_772"
      },
      {
        "text": "shareholder-derivative suit, or private-attorney-general",
        "paragraph_id": "para_773"
      },
      {
        "text": "action. See id. at 657. In these types of “representative”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_774"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits, the plaintiff stands in the shoes of some third party,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_775"
      },
      {
        "text": "effectively bringing claims on that third party’s behalf. See,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_776"
      },
      {
        "text": "e.g., Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d",
        "paragraph_id": "para_777"
      },
      {
        "text": "1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (describing qui tam relators as",
        "paragraph_id": "para_778"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representing the interests of the government and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_779"
      },
      {
        "text": "prosecuting the action on its behalf”). The Supreme Court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_780"
      },
      {
        "text": "has observed that, unlike collective action representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_781"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits that “adjudicate the individual claims of multiple absent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_782"
      },
      {
        "text": "third parties,” “single-agent, single-principal representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_783"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits” are consistent with “the norm of bilateral arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_784"
      },
      {
        "text": "as [the Court’s] precedents conceive of it.” Viking River,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_785"
      },
      {
        "text": "596 U.S. at 655, 657. Suits that are “representative” in the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_786"
      },
      {
        "text": "principal-agent sense are thus fully compatible with a law",
        "paragraph_id": "para_787"
      },
      {
        "text": "requiring that arbitration be “representative.” See id. at 656–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_788"
      },
      {
        "text": "57.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_789"
      },
      {
        "text": "The parties do not dispute, and this court’s case law",
        "paragraph_id": "para_790"
      },
      {
        "text": "recognizes, that section 502(a)(2) ERISA claims are",
        "paragraph_id": "para_791"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” in the second, “principal-agent” sense. See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_792"
      },
      {
        "text": "Munro v. Univ. of S. Cal., 896 F.3d 1088, 1092–93 (9th Cir.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_793"
      },
      {
        "text": "2018). So the important question here is whether the term",
        "paragraph_id": "para_794"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” in the Plan’s class-action waiver bars such",
        "paragraph_id": "para_795"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_796"
      },
      {
        "text": "A contextual reading of the Plan’s class-action waiver",
        "paragraph_id": "para_797"
      },
      {
        "text": "confirms that when it refers to “representative” suits, it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_798"
      },
      {
        "text": "means collective-action representative suits (like class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_799"
      },
      {
        "text": "26 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_800"
      },
      {
        "text": "actions) rather than principal-agent representative suits on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_801"
      },
      {
        "text": "behalf of the Plan. A phrase is given more precise content",
        "paragraph_id": "para_802"
      },
      {
        "text": "by its association with neighboring words. See Fischer v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_803"
      },
      {
        "text": "United States, 603 U.S. 480, 487 (2024). And when a word",
        "paragraph_id": "para_804"
      },
      {
        "text": "is placed at the end of a list, it “is typically ‘controlled and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_805"
      },
      {
        "text": "defined by reference to the specific classes … that precede",
        "paragraph_id": "para_806"
      },
      {
        "text": "it.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sw.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_807"
      },
      {
        "text": "Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 458 (2022)). A classic",
        "paragraph_id": "para_808"
      },
      {
        "text": "example of this principle comes from Yates v. United States,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_809"
      },
      {
        "text": "574 U.S. 528 (2015) (plurality opinion). There, the Supreme",
        "paragraph_id": "para_810"
      },
      {
        "text": "Court considered whether the Sarbanes–Oxley Act’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_811"
      },
      {
        "text": "prohibition on tampering with any “tangible object” applied",
        "paragraph_id": "para_812"
      },
      {
        "text": "to fish. Id. at 532. The dissenting justices concluded that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_813"
      },
      {
        "text": "the phrase “tangible object” covered “any object capable of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_814"
      },
      {
        "text": "being touched,” including a fish. Id. at 553 (Kagan, J.,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_815"
      },
      {
        "text": "dissenting). But the Yates plurality and Justice Alito rightly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_816"
      },
      {
        "text": "rejected that unnatural reading and looked to the full",
        "paragraph_id": "para_817"
      },
      {
        "text": "prohibition against tampering with “any record, document,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_818"
      },
      {
        "text": "or tangible object.” See id. at 544–45; id. at 549–50 (Alito,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_819"
      },
      {
        "text": "J., concurring in judgment). In context, it was clear that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_820"
      },
      {
        "text": "“tangible object” referred “not to any tangible object, but",
        "paragraph_id": "para_821"
      },
      {
        "text": "specifically to the subset of tangible objects involving",
        "paragraph_id": "para_822"
      },
      {
        "text": "records and documents.” Id. at 544; accord id. at 549–50",
        "paragraph_id": "para_823"
      },
      {
        "text": "(Alito, J., concurring in judgment).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_824"
      },
      {
        "text": "Applying this interpretive approach to the Plan’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_825"
      },
      {
        "text": "prohibition on “class, collective, or representative” suits",
        "paragraph_id": "para_826"
      },
      {
        "text": "shows that it bars collective-action representative suits only,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_827"
      },
      {
        "text": "and not principal-agent suits on behalf of the Plan. Just like",
        "paragraph_id": "para_828"
      },
      {
        "text": "the phrase “tangible object” in Yates, the class-action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_829"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver’s use of “representative” comes at the end of a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_830"
      },
      {
        "text": "list—“class, collective or representative.” The words",
        "paragraph_id": "para_831"
      },
      {
        "text": "surrounding “representative” in the waiver—“class” and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_832"
      },
      {
        "text": "“collective”—confirm that the waiver refers to the types of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_833"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 27",
        "paragraph_id": "para_834"
      },
      {
        "text": "representative suits brought on behalf of other similarly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_835"
      },
      {
        "text": "situated individuals, not to principal-agent “representative”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_836"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits where an individual effectively steps into the shoes of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_837"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan. Accordingly, we should read “representative suits”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_838"
      },
      {
        "text": "to refer not to any representative suits, but only to the subset",
        "paragraph_id": "para_839"
      },
      {
        "text": "of representative suits that involve “class” or “collective”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_840"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_841"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover responds that reading the class-action waiver this",
        "paragraph_id": "para_842"
      },
      {
        "text": "way violates the canon against surplusage by making the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_843"
      },
      {
        "text": "term “representative” “duplicative of the [preceding] terms",
        "paragraph_id": "para_844"
      },
      {
        "text": "‘class’ and ‘collective.’” But this argument is not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_845"
      },
      {
        "text": "persuasive. For one thing, Pover’s reading wouldn’t solve",
        "paragraph_id": "para_846"
      },
      {
        "text": "all the redundancy problems: if the waiver used",
        "paragraph_id": "para_847"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” in the principal-agent sense, it still also uses",
        "paragraph_id": "para_848"
      },
      {
        "text": "the words “class” and “collective,” which mean the same",
        "paragraph_id": "para_849"
      },
      {
        "text": "thing and would also be redundant. It wouldn’t make sense",
        "paragraph_id": "para_850"
      },
      {
        "text": "to apply the surplusage canon to one word in this list, but not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_851"
      },
      {
        "text": "the others. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “[t]he",
        "paragraph_id": "para_852"
      },
      {
        "text": "canon against surplusage can be meaningful when a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_853"
      },
      {
        "text": "competing interpretation would avoid superfluity. But,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_854"
      },
      {
        "text": "when both interpretations involve the same redundancy, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_855"
      },
      {
        "text": "canon against surplusage simply does not apply.” Bufkin v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_856"
      },
      {
        "text": "Collins, 604 U.S. 369, 387 (2025) (citations omitted); see",
        "paragraph_id": "para_857"
      },
      {
        "text": "also Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 385",
        "paragraph_id": "para_858"
      },
      {
        "text": "(2013) (declining to apply the canon against surplusage",
        "paragraph_id": "para_859"
      },
      {
        "text": "when no interpretation would give effect to every",
        "paragraph_id": "para_860"
      },
      {
        "text": "word). “[E]ven excellent writers do not always trim",
        "paragraph_id": "para_861"
      },
      {
        "text": "every unnecessary word,” Mullin v. Al Otro Lado,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_862"
      },
      {
        "text": "609 U.S. ----, ----, 2026 WL 1825741, at *8 (U.S. June 25,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_863"
      },
      {
        "text": "2026), and it appears that the Plan’s drafters simply included",
        "paragraph_id": "para_864"
      },
      {
        "text": "a three-word list to refer exhaustively to the same type of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_865"
      },
      {
        "text": "collective representative action.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_866"
      },
      {
        "text": "28 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_867"
      },
      {
        "text": "To be sure, there’s some overlap in the terms “class,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_868"
      },
      {
        "text": "collective or representative,” but legal documents are often",
        "paragraph_id": "para_869"
      },
      {
        "text": "overinclusive and use repetitive phrases to get the same point",
        "paragraph_id": "para_870"
      },
      {
        "text": "across. This is “a perhaps regrettable but not uncommon sort",
        "paragraph_id": "para_871"
      },
      {
        "text": "of lawyerly iteration.” Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 566",
        "paragraph_id": "para_872"
      },
      {
        "text": "U.S. 624, 635 (2012). As Justice Scalia observed, the canon",
        "paragraph_id": "para_873"
      },
      {
        "text": "against surplusage “cannot always be dispositive” because",
        "paragraph_id": "para_874"
      },
      {
        "text": "“[s]ometimes drafters do repeat themselves and do include",
        "paragraph_id": "para_875"
      },
      {
        "text": "words that add nothing of substance, either out of a flawed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_876"
      },
      {
        "text": "sense of style or to engage in the ill-conceived but",
        "paragraph_id": "para_877"
      },
      {
        "text": "lamentably common belt-and-suspenders approach.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_878"
      },
      {
        "text": "Doublets and triplets abound in legalese: Execute and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_879"
      },
      {
        "text": "perform—what satisfies one but not the other? Rest, residue,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_880"
      },
      {
        "text": "and remainder—could a judge interpret these as referring to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_881"
      },
      {
        "text": "three distinct things? Peace and quiet—when is peace not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_882"
      },
      {
        "text": "quiet?” Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law 176–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_883"
      },
      {
        "text": "77 (2012). “Sometimes,” as here, “the better overall reading",
        "paragraph_id": "para_884"
      },
      {
        "text": "of [a document] contains some redundancy.” Rimini Street,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_885"
      },
      {
        "text": "Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U.S. 334, 346 (2019); accord",
        "paragraph_id": "para_886"
      },
      {
        "text": "Freeman, 566 U.S. at 635 (adopting interpretation of statute",
        "paragraph_id": "para_887"
      },
      {
        "text": "under which “portion, split, or percentage” in the same",
        "paragraph_id": "para_888"
      },
      {
        "text": "clause “all mean the same thing”).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_889"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pover’s reading would also render an important part of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_890"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan’s arbitration provision meaningless. The arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_891"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision specifies that it seeks “to make mandatory",
        "paragraph_id": "para_892"
      },
      {
        "text": "individual arbitration apply … to the maximum extent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_893"
      },
      {
        "text": "permissible under ERISA.” Interpreting “representative” as",
        "paragraph_id": "para_894"
      },
      {
        "text": "banning section 502(a)(2) claims on behalf of a plan would",
        "paragraph_id": "para_895"
      },
      {
        "text": "essentially foreclose arbitration of any ERISA claims",
        "paragraph_id": "para_896"
      },
      {
        "text": "because—as the majority correctly observes—all",
        "paragraph_id": "para_897"
      },
      {
        "text": "section 502(a)(2) claims are representative in the principal-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_898"
      },
      {
        "text": "agent sense. So if this interpretation were right, the class-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_899"
      },
      {
        "text": "action waiver would bar every representative action filed on",
        "paragraph_id": "para_900"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 29",
        "paragraph_id": "para_901"
      },
      {
        "text": "behalf of a plan. Such a reading puts the arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_902"
      },
      {
        "text": "provision and the class-action waiver in direct conflict—the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_903"
      },
      {
        "text": "latter takes away most or all of what the former purports to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_904"
      },
      {
        "text": "give. Since both provisions were added to the Plan at the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_905"
      },
      {
        "text": "same time, it’s implausible this is what the drafters meant.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_906"
      },
      {
        "text": "Reading the Plan’s class-action waiver as applying only to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_907"
      },
      {
        "text": "collective actions where the plaintiff seeks to represent a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_908"
      },
      {
        "text": "class of similarly situated individuals is most consistent with",
        "paragraph_id": "para_909"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Plan’s express statement that arbitration “shall remain",
        "paragraph_id": "para_910"
      },
      {
        "text": "required with the minimum change necessary to allow the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_911"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration requirement to be permissible under ERISA.”1",
        "paragraph_id": "para_912"
      },
      {
        "text": "At bottom, the best reading of the Plan’s class-action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_913"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver is that it uses the word “representative” in its",
        "paragraph_id": "para_914"
      },
      {
        "text": "collective-action sense, not its principal-agent sense. This",
        "paragraph_id": "para_915"
      },
      {
        "text": "means that the waiver does not bar Pover from arbitrating",
        "paragraph_id": "para_916"
      },
      {
        "text": "section 502(a)(2) claims on behalf of the Plan.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_917"
      },
      {
        "text": "B. The majority misapplies Platt.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_918"
      },
      {
        "text": "Eliding any analysis of the Plan’s language, the majority",
        "paragraph_id": "para_919"
      },
      {
        "text": "simply asserts that, on the crucial interpretive question here:",
        "paragraph_id": "para_920"
      },
      {
        "text": "“our decision in Platt controls.” Majority Op. at 19. This is",
        "paragraph_id": "para_921"
      },
      {
        "text": "the loadbearing move in the majority opinion. But it is a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_922"
      },
      {
        "text": "misstep.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_923"
      },
      {
        "text": "1 The Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) supports this understanding.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_924"
      },
      {
        "text": "The SPD provides that plan participants may not “participate in a class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_925"
      },
      {
        "text": "action involving the plan” and instead “must arbitrate any claim",
        "paragraph_id": "para_926"
      },
      {
        "text": "involving the plan, including … a claim based on allegations of breach",
        "paragraph_id": "para_927"
      },
      {
        "text": "of fiduciary responsibility”—in other words, section 502(a)(2) claims.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_928"
      },
      {
        "text": "The SPD thus confirms that the arbitration provisions were intended to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_929"
      },
      {
        "text": "allow arbitration of principal-agent representative claims on behalf of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_930"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan, while foreclosing only class- or collective-action representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_931"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_932"
      },
      {
        "text": "30 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_933"
      },
      {
        "text": "In Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., a three-judge panel held that the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_934"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine prevented us from compelling",
        "paragraph_id": "para_935"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitration because the arbitration clause in that case",
        "paragraph_id": "para_936"
      },
      {
        "text": "prohibited claims brought “as a plaintiff or class member in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_937"
      },
      {
        "text": "any purported class or representative proceeding.” 148 F.4th",
        "paragraph_id": "para_938"
      },
      {
        "text": "709, 715, 721 (9th Cir. 2025) (emphasis added). The Platt",
        "paragraph_id": "para_939"
      },
      {
        "text": "panel described that clause as “a representative action",
        "paragraph_id": "para_940"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver, which expressly preclude[d] Platt from bringing",
        "paragraph_id": "para_941"
      },
      {
        "text": "claims in a representative capacity on the Plan’s behalf.” Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_942"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 721. And, the Platt panel held, this waiver was",
        "paragraph_id": "para_943"
      },
      {
        "text": "unenforceable because it “prevent[ed]” plan participants",
        "paragraph_id": "para_944"
      },
      {
        "text": "from seeking the “plan-wide relief” that section 502(a)(2)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_945"
      },
      {
        "text": "entitles them to seek. Id.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_946"
      },
      {
        "text": "It’s hard to tell exactly why the Platt panel was so",
        "paragraph_id": "para_947"
      },
      {
        "text": "confident that a clause barring claims “as a plaintiff or class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_948"
      },
      {
        "text": "member in any purported class or representative proceeding”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_949"
      },
      {
        "text": "prevented individuals from bringing “plan-wide”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_950"
      },
      {
        "text": "section 502(a)(2) claims. Cf. id. at 715, 721. Platt did not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_951"
      },
      {
        "text": "acknowledge the different types of representative actions.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_952"
      },
      {
        "text": "Nor did it inspect the language of the arbitration clause at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_953"
      },
      {
        "text": "issue there to determine whether it barred principal-agent",
        "paragraph_id": "para_954"
      },
      {
        "text": "“representative” actions on behalf of a third party—like qui",
        "paragraph_id": "para_955"
      },
      {
        "text": "tam and shareholder-derivative suits—or merely barred",
        "paragraph_id": "para_956"
      },
      {
        "text": "class-action-style “representative” actions. The Platt panel",
        "paragraph_id": "para_957"
      },
      {
        "text": "opinion quotes the relevant waiver language only once, in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_958"
      },
      {
        "text": "the “background” section, id. at 715, and simply",
        "paragraph_id": "para_959"
      },
      {
        "text": "concludes—six pages later, without any analysis—that this",
        "paragraph_id": "para_960"
      },
      {
        "text": "language is “a representative action waiver, which expressly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_961"
      },
      {
        "text": "preclude[d] Platt from bringing claims in a representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_962"
      },
      {
        "text": "capacity on the Plan’s behalf,” id. at 721. Platt appears to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_963"
      },
      {
        "text": "be nothing but a fact-bound decision with essentially no",
        "paragraph_id": "para_964"
      },
      {
        "text": "analysis.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_965"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 31",
        "paragraph_id": "para_966"
      },
      {
        "text": "It’s also not clear why the majority is so confident that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_967"
      },
      {
        "text": "Platt “controls” here. Majority Op. at 19. The language in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_968"
      },
      {
        "text": "the Platt agreement—barring claims brought “as a plaintiff",
        "paragraph_id": "para_969"
      },
      {
        "text": "or class member in any purported class or representative",
        "paragraph_id": "para_970"
      },
      {
        "text": "proceeding”—is different from the language in the class-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_971"
      },
      {
        "text": "action waiver here. Id. at 715 (emphasis added). I don’t read",
        "paragraph_id": "para_972"
      },
      {
        "text": "Platt to hold that every arbitration agreement provision with",
        "paragraph_id": "para_973"
      },
      {
        "text": "somewhat comparable language necessarily bars ERISA",
        "paragraph_id": "para_974"
      },
      {
        "text": "suits on behalf of a plan and is therefore invalid under the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_975"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective-vindication doctrine. And I would not extend",
        "paragraph_id": "para_976"
      },
      {
        "text": "Platt’s cursory holding about the specific agreement in that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_977"
      },
      {
        "text": "case—which, again, involved no analysis of the relevant",
        "paragraph_id": "para_978"
      },
      {
        "text": "language or the different types of representative suits—to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_979"
      },
      {
        "text": "this case, which involves a different Plan, with different",
        "paragraph_id": "para_980"
      },
      {
        "text": "language.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_981"
      },
      {
        "text": "Platt is thus no bar to properly construing the actual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_982"
      },
      {
        "text": "language before us. And, as I’ve explained, the best",
        "paragraph_id": "para_983"
      },
      {
        "text": "interpretation of this Plan’s class-action waiver is that it does",
        "paragraph_id": "para_984"
      },
      {
        "text": "not ban principal-agent representative suits on behalf of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_985"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan. Because the waiver does not ban those suits, it does",
        "paragraph_id": "para_986"
      },
      {
        "text": "not prevent Pover from vindicating her rights under ERISA,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_987"
      },
      {
        "text": "and the severability clause does not take effect. Cf. Majority",
        "paragraph_id": "para_988"
      },
      {
        "text": "Op. at 22.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_989"
      },
      {
        "text": "II. We should have applied well-established exceptions",
        "paragraph_id": "para_990"
      },
      {
        "text": "to waiver and allowed the arbitrator to decide the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_991"
      },
      {
        "text": "threshold issues of arbitrability.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_992"
      },
      {
        "text": "Although the majority errs in extending Platt’s holding",
        "paragraph_id": "para_993"
      },
      {
        "text": "to misinterpret the class-action waiver, we did not even need",
        "paragraph_id": "para_994"
      },
      {
        "text": "to reach that question. That’s because the Plan delegates",
        "paragraph_id": "para_995"
      },
      {
        "text": "threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_996"
      },
      {
        "text": "Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) tasks courts with a limited",
        "paragraph_id": "para_997"
      },
      {
        "text": "role when reviewing a motion to compel arbitration. See",
        "paragraph_id": "para_998"
      },
      {
        "text": "32 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_999"
      },
      {
        "text": "Rent–A–Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67 (2010); 9",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1000"
      },
      {
        "text": "U.S.C. § 2. Because arbitration is a matter of contract,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1001"
      },
      {
        "text": "“parties are generally free to structure their arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1002"
      },
      {
        "text": "agreements as they see fit.” Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1003"
      },
      {
        "text": "Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1004"
      },
      {
        "text": "(1989); Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1005"
      },
      {
        "text": "U.S. 662, 683 (2010); see also Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1006"
      },
      {
        "text": "Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1007"
      },
      {
        "text": "The freedom to contract includes the freedom to keep courts",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1008"
      },
      {
        "text": "out of disputes altogether by dictating that threshold",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1009"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability questions—such as whether an arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1010"
      },
      {
        "text": "agreement applies to a particular dispute and whether the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1011"
      },
      {
        "text": "agreement is voided by operation of law—will be decided",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1012"
      },
      {
        "text": "by an arbitrator and not the courts. Henry Schein, Inc. v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1013"
      },
      {
        "text": "Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); Rent–",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1014"
      },
      {
        "text": "A–Ctr., 561 U.S. at 68–70; First Options of Chicago, Inc. v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1015"
      },
      {
        "text": "Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). When parties “clearly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1016"
      },
      {
        "text": "and unmistakably” demonstrate their intention to arbitrate",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1017"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability, we must enforce that agreement. Brennan v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1018"
      },
      {
        "text": "Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting AT",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1019"
      },
      {
        "text": "& T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1020"
      },
      {
        "text": "649 (1986)).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1021"
      },
      {
        "text": "Here, the Plan Committee added an arbitration clause",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1022"
      },
      {
        "text": "and the class-action waiver to the Plan by formal amendment",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1023"
      },
      {
        "text": "on January 27, 2020. The clause applied broadly to “[a]ny",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1024"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim, controversy or alleged breach or violation of law that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1025"
      },
      {
        "text": "arises out of or relates in any way to the Plan,” and was",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1026"
      },
      {
        "text": "binding on both current and former participants.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1027"
      },
      {
        "text": "The clause explicitly incorporated the American",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1028"
      },
      {
        "text": "Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Rules, stating: “[a]ny",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1029"
      },
      {
        "text": "claim, controversy or alleged breach or violation of the law",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1030"
      },
      {
        "text": "that arises out of or related in any way to the Plan … shall",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1031"
      },
      {
        "text": "be settled in binding arbitration administered by the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1032"
      },
      {
        "text": "POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. 33",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1033"
      },
      {
        "text": "American Arbitration Association under its Employment",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1034"
      },
      {
        "text": "Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures.” Under Ninth",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1035"
      },
      {
        "text": "Circuit precedent, this incorporation constitutes “clear and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1036"
      },
      {
        "text": "unmistakable” evidence that the Plan delegated threshold",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1037"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. Brennan, 796 F.3d",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1038"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 1130; Caremark, LLC v. Choctaw Nation, 104 F.4th 81,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1039"
      },
      {
        "text": "87 n.5 (9th Cir. 2024). Threshold issues delegated to the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1040"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrator include defenses like unconscionability and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1041"
      },
      {
        "text": "effective vindication. Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1042"
      },
      {
        "text": "Inc., 97 F.4th 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2024). The Plan’s “clear",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1043"
      },
      {
        "text": "and unmistakable” delegation of threshold issues to an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1044"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrator, deprives us of the authority to decide threshold",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1045"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability questions and directs these questions to the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1046"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrator.2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1047"
      },
      {
        "text": "The majority refuses to resolve the case on these clear",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1048"
      },
      {
        "text": "legal grounds because Capital failed to argue the issue before",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1049"
      },
      {
        "text": "the district court. Majority Op. at 17 n.2. But the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1050"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability of the Plan falls squarely within our recognized",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1051"
      },
      {
        "text": "waiver exceptions. We may, and often do, consider",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1052"
      },
      {
        "text": "arguments not raised below where the issue is purely legal,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1053"
      },
      {
        "text": "the record is fully developed, and there is no prejudice.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1054"
      },
      {
        "text": "Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006);",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1055"
      },
      {
        "text": "Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1056"
      },
      {
        "text": "2 The amendment complied with ERISA’s procedural requirements. The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1057"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan expressly authorizes the Committee to amend the Plan. The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1058"
      },
      {
        "text": "amendment was disclosed in both the Summary Plan Description and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1059"
      },
      {
        "text": "quarterly materials. The record establishes that the Plan followed its",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1060"
      },
      {
        "text": "own amendment procedures and satisfied ERISA’s disclosure",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1061"
      },
      {
        "text": "obligations. The Supreme Court has explained that employers may",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1062"
      },
      {
        "text": "freely amend ERISA plans if they follow the procedures outlined in the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1063"
      },
      {
        "text": "plan’s documents. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1064"
      },
      {
        "text": "78 (1995). Pover does not dispute that the Committee had authority to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1065"
      },
      {
        "text": "adopt the amendment.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1066"
      },
      {
        "text": "34 POVER V. THE CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1067"
      },
      {
        "text": "Whether incorporation of AAA Rules in the Plan governs",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1068"
      },
      {
        "text": "delegation is a purely legal question. Brennan, 796 F.3d at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1069"
      },
      {
        "text": "1130. The record is also complete since nobody disputes",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1070"
      },
      {
        "text": "that the language of the valid amendment to the Plan",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1071"
      },
      {
        "text": "explicitly incorporates the AAA Rules. And factual disputes",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1072"
      },
      {
        "text": "about Pover’s sophistication or receipt of amendments to the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1073"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan are irrelevant to whether the Plan agreed to arbitration",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1074"
      },
      {
        "text": "(which it clearly did). Pover is suing here on behalf of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1075"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plan—she cannot rely on her individual level of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1076"
      },
      {
        "text": "sophistication in asking us to ignore the Plan’s delegation of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1077"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. The Plan is not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1078"
      },
      {
        "text": "prejudiced by arbitrating according to the Plan’s own terms,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1079"
      },
      {
        "text": "which the Plan itself approved. I see no reason to avoid",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1080"
      },
      {
        "text": "enforcing the arbitration clause’s delegation of arbitrability",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1081"
      },
      {
        "text": "questions to an arbitrator.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1082"
      },
      {
        "text": "* * *",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1083"
      },
      {
        "text": "We should not have even decided the issue of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1084"
      },
      {
        "text": "arbitrability, but the majority nonetheless reaches that issue",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1085"
      },
      {
        "text": "to find that the class-action waiver bans more than class",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1086"
      },
      {
        "text": "actions. In doing so, the majority transplants the ipse-dixit",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1087"
      },
      {
        "text": "holding from Platt to hold in this case, again without",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1088"
      },
      {
        "text": "analysis, that the Plan language here bars Pover from",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1089"
      },
      {
        "text": "bringing claims on behalf of the Plan. That isn’t the best",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1090"
      },
      {
        "text": "reading of the Plan’s class-action waiver. I respectfully",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1091"
      },
      {
        "text": "dissent.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1092"
      }
    ],
    "word_count": 9075,
    "cites": [
      "552 U.S. 248",
      "534 U.S. 204",
      "473 U.S.\n134",
      "570 U.S. 228",
      "460 U.S. 1",
      "596 U.S. 639",
      "417 U.S. 506",
      "473 U.S. 614",
      "516 U.S. 489",
      "596\nU.S. 639",
      "603 U.S. 480",
      "596 U.S. 450",
      "574 U.S. 528",
      "604 U.S. 369",
      "568 U.S. 371",
      "566\nU.S. 624",
      "586 U.S. 334",
      "561 U.S. 63",
      "489 U.S. 468",
      "559\nU.S. 662",
      "586 U.S. 63",
      "514 U.S. 938",
      "475 U.S. 643",
      "514 U.S. 73",
      "928 F.3d\n819",
      "959 F.3d 1154",
      "41\nF.4th 1120",
      "148\nF.4th 709",
      "100 F.4th 386",
      "896 F.3d 1088",
      "59 F.4th 1090",
      "667 F.3d 1318",
      "436\nF.3d 1098",
      "32 F.4th 625",
      "161 F.4th 1313",
      "114 F.4th 786",
      "502 F.3d\n1116",
      "148 F.4th\n709",
      "796 F.3d 1125",
      "104 F.4th 81",
      "97 F.4th 1190",
      "464 F.3d 968",
      "760 F.3d 1039"
    ],
    "cited_by": [],
    "sha256": "ebdd2105efb013e19c6d0e6436b6ea700f736be69b828931fd72709ff5f692b1",
    "source_url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/30/24-5298.pdf",
    "fetched_at": "2026-10-03T11:40:23.194+00:00",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes",
    "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
    "verification": {
      "stored_sha256": "ebdd2105efb013e19c6d0e6436b6ea700f736be69b828931fd72709ff5f692b1",
      "recomputed_sha256": "ebdd2105efb013e19c6d0e6436b6ea700f736be69b828931fd72709ff5f692b1",
      "intact": true,
      "checked_at": "2026-10-15T12:41:32.829Z"
    }
  },
  "hash": "sha256:5e1247f954dc09e171f9f4de5a1fa4c9052be1491106e282eaa1a6bdf410ebd3",
  "version": "legal-2026-10-15",
  "expires": "2026-10-16T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-10-15+legal-2026-10-15+2026-10-15T07:48:58",
    "content_hash": "sha256:5e1247f954dc09e171f9f4de5a1fa4c9052be1491106e282eaa1a6bdf410ebd3",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-10-15T13:41:33.034Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30",
  "follow": [
    {
      "rel": "risk",
      "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30"
    },
    {
      "rel": "relations",
      "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30"
    },
    {
      "rel": "agent",
      "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5298-2026-07-30"
    },
    {
      "rel": "obligations",
      "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"
    },
    {
      "rel": "changes",
      "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"
    }
  ],
  "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.",
  "content_notice": {
    "legal_advice": false,
    "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.",
    "kinds": {
      "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted",
      "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text",
      "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"
    },
    "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.",
    "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections",
    "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"
  },
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering",
  "access_class": "public",
  "access_view": "public"
}