Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to remit employee "Salary Reduction and Other Elective Simplified Employee Pension" ("SARSEP") contributions in a timely manner; failed to make the required employer contribution by virtue of funding the employer contribution from the employee's earned commission; and failed to make contributions at the same percentage for all employees, in violation of the express terms of the SARSEP. The defendants argued that Plaintiff's ERISA claims were barred by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1113.

The Court acknowledged that the Fourth Circuit had not specifically provided a precise definition of what it considers "actual knowledge of the breach of violation" under § 413 of ERISA. Rather, in Shofer v. Hack Co., 970 F.2d 1316, 1318 (4th Cir. 1992), it had only stated that "[t]he ERISA statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has knowledge of the alleged breach of a responsibility." The Court looked to Trace v. Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees, 419 F.Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Va. 2006), wherein it was found that the relevant inquiry must focus upon the alleged violations and the timing of when the plaintiff became aware of the facts constituting the violation.

Here, the Court determined that the alleged violations were: (1) that the defendants failed to make the required employer contribution by virtue of funding the employer contribution from the employee's earned commission; and (2) that the defendants failed to make contributions at the same percentage for all employees, in violation of the express terms of the SARSEP.

As to the former, the filings indicated that the Plaintiff first learned of the essential facts in 1996 at which time he had actual knowledge that CBG was funding the employer contribution from the employee's earned commission. However, the Plaintiff took no affirmative actions to rectify his SARSEP situation until he first met with his accountants and subsequently filed the lawsuit in 2007. While he had acquired the essential fact for the alleged violation in 1996, he did nothing about it for eleven years.

The Plaintiff alternatively contended that each contribution improperly made into the SARSEP by CBG constituted a separate violation which served to trigger a new statute of limitations. The Court, however, disagreed, holding that the alleged breach or violation occurred when the defendants decided how to contribute into the SARSEP – each subsequent contribution which was part of that initial plan did not constitute a new violation. Thus, the Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary claim was bound by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary claim.