401k and 403b Excessive Fee Litigation California



 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

 Schedule a Free Consultation Today

Contact Us

Get Answers to Our Firm's Most Frequently Asked Questions

401k and 403b Excessive Fee Litigation California

Breach of Fiduciary Duty with 401k and 403b mismanagement is when the managers of your 401k or 403b are not managing the funds ethically and or properly. It is a serious issue that has come to light in recent years. The law for managing these 401k and 403b plans and specifically what qualifies as mismanagement is a complex issue but not for our Attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher LLP. Because each 401k and 403b mismanagement cases are very different, we recommend that you reach out to us for a Free Consultation so we can give you specifics of your individual case.

The IRS describes a 401K and 403b plans as a tax-qualified retirement accounts that eligible employees can contribute to for their retirement. For the most part, 401k and 403b plans are regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act which is known as ERISA. The ERISA regulations state that 401k and 403b administrators owe fiduciary duties to plan participants and their beneficiaries. If the administrators of the 401k or 403b plans mismanage the plan, they may be Liable for resulting losses.

DO YOU HAVE  A 401k or 403b MISMANAGEMENT CASE?

It is important to know that just because you “think” the administrators are doing a bad job or because your account is not going up in value, doesn’t mean you have a case. In order to have a case you have to Prove that the administrators violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Here is what ERISA states are the 401k and 403b administrator duties:


  • Act solely in the best participants & beneficiaries;
  • Perform with reasonable prudence & competence;
  • Comply with the foundational documents of the plan;
  • Avoid charging unjustifiably fees and/or expenses.

 

The 4th item above is the most common type of Mismanagement of your 401k or 403b. However, each case and plan is different. If you think the value of your 401k or 403b has been damaged by mismanagement, please call us for a Free Consultation with an experienced 401k and 403b claims lawyer, so we can review your specific case and give you the options.


ERISA Lawsuit Settlements

In 2016, Providence Health & Services, a religiously affiliated hospital based in Renton, Washington, reportedly agreed to pay almost $352 million to resolve an ERISA class action settlement accusing it of underfunding its pension plan. The plaintiffs claimed Providence Health improperly classified the pension as a “church plan” that was exempt from ERISA.

According to the Providence Health ERISA class action lawsuit, Providence Health’s claim that its pension plan is a “church plan” is improper because it is not a church or a convention or an association of churches, and because the Providence Health pension plan was not established by a church or a convention or association of churches.

The plaintiffs allege that Providence Health failed to follow ERISA’s funding rules for the pension plan, failed to provide Class Members with pension statements, summary annual reports and required notifications, failing to file annual reports with the Secretary of Labor, and failing to meet certain requirements regarding the trust that holds the pension’s assets.

Other examples of ERISA lawsuit settlements include:

  • St. Francis Hospital, another religiously-affiliated hospital in Hartford, Conn., also agreed to settle ERISA claims in May 2016. St. Francis Hospital reportedly agreed to pay $107 million in an ERISA settlement.


  • Trinity Health, based in Livonia, Mich., reached a $75 million ERISA settlement.



  • Ascension Health, based in St. Louis, Mo., agreed to pay $8 million to settle allegations it underfunded its pension plan.


Contact Bradley/Grombacher for a free case evaluation by reaching out to our employment law firm online or calling (866) 881-0403.

How Do I Make an ERISA Claim for Pension Benefits?

ERISA requires all pension plans to have a written procedure for processing benefits claims and a process to appeal the decision if the claim is denied. The plan is required to provide a written notice about why a claim is denied and how to file an appeal.

When an appeal is denied, the plan is required to provide written notice explaining the reason for the denial and any other opportunities that may be available to further appeal the decision. The plan is also required to provide a statement informing the claimant of the right to seek judicial review of the denial.

If you believe your pension plan failed to follow the requirements of ERISA, it is a good idea to consult with an ERISA lawyer in Agoura Hills and Westlake Village who has experience with ERISA to discuss your options. Although most ERISA claims are settled through an administrative process, it may be necessary to file an ERISA lawsuit in cases in which valid benefits are denied or when plan administrators breach their fiduciary duties to plan participants.

Galvan v. Doe

$6,750,000

Continue to Stay Informed

Our Blog



By Grombacher February 20, 2026
California Telehealth Company Facing Class Action Over Alleged Physician Misclassification and Unpaid Wages Westlake Village, California – A new class and collective action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Mochi Medical, P.A., and Mochi Health Corp., alleging widespread wage-and-hour violations stemming from the alleged misclassification of healthcare providers as independent contractors. The complaint asserts that the defendants operate a telehealth platform for weight management services and a related professional medical group that provides prescription services based on referrals from that platform. According to the lawsuit, the companies uniformly classified physicians and other healthcare professionals as independent contractors despite exercising significant control over their work. The named plaintiff, Dr. Frank Cioppettini, worked remotely as a licensed physician for the defendants from approximately December 10, 2024, to February 14, 2025. The complaint alleges that during this time, he and similarly situated providers were subject to company-directed policies, scheduling requirements, supervision, and performance evaluation, factors that, under California’s “ABC test,” may indicate employee status rather than independent contractor status.  The lawsuit contends that by misclassifying healthcare providers, the defendants failed to provide key protections guaranteed to employees under California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These alleged violations include failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages upon termination, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 for unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum and all wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair business practices. According to the complaint, the defendants maintained uniform scheduling and timekeeping practices across states, and the alleged policies were administered from California. The proposed class includes healthcare professionals classified as contractors whose employment relationships were governed by California law within four years prior to the filing of the action. The lawsuit further alleges that hundreds of providers may have been affected. “This action challenges a uniform scheme to misclassify healthcare providers as independent contractors, despite Defendants’ pervasive control over their work and integration of their services into Defendants’ core business. As a result of this misclassification, employees were unlawfully denied overtime, minimum wages, expense reimbursement, accurate wage statements, and timely final pay,” said attorney Marcus Bradley. The case is styled Frank Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C ., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01260, USDC Northern District of California.
By Grombacher November 3, 2025
Spotting false advertising in 2025 is tougher than ever. Bradley/Grombacher breaks down how to protect yourself and take legal action.
How to Recover Financially After Catastrophic Injury
By Grombacher September 5, 2025
Experiencing a catastrophic injury can turn your world upside down and can lead to long-term or permanent physical, emotional, and financial challenges.
Read More

Success Stories

Reviews

We highly recommend!



“Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

- Kylie & Daniel C.

Schedule a Free Consultation



Contact Us