IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH BENOTTI, e al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 4:26-cv-00188-DGK ) LOCKTON, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

This is an ERISA case. Plaintiff Elizabeth Benotti, individually and on behalf of the Lockton, Inc., 401(k) Plan and a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., against Defendants Lockton, Inc., and Does 1–30. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate this case with a related case, Fritts, et al. v. Lockton, Inc., 4:26-cv-00185-DGK (W.D. Mo. March 6, 2026). ECF No. 12. The Plaintiffs in Fritts join the motion. See Fritts, et al. v. Lockton, Inc., 4:26-cv-00185-DGK, ECF No. 8. The Benotti and Fritts Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Alexandr Rudenco of Milberg PLLC and Mark Gyandoh of Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Maureen Brady of McShane Brady Law as Interim Liaison Counsel. Plaintiffs also seek an extension of pleading and motion deadlines. Defendants do not oppose the motion. When cases “involve a common question of law or fact,” the Court may “(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). If a common question exists, the Court then balances “the convenience and economy in the administration of actions achieved through consolidation against the danger of inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.” Keil v. Bearden, No. 18-06074-CV-SJ-BP, 2021 WL 7708479, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consolidation is favored “when two cases involve ‘common parties, overlapping legal issues, and related factual scenarios.’” Keil,

2021 WL 77088479, at *1 (quoting Horizon Asset Mgmt. v. H&R Block, Inc., 580 F.3d 755, 768 (8th Cir. 2009)). The Court holds that the cases should be consolidated. The cases involve the same defendants and have overlapping legal and factual issues. The cases involve identical ERISA claims against Defendants, namely, that Defendants failed to remove the America Century Target Date Fund series as an investment option in the Plan in violation of ERISA. Because the legal claims are the same in each case, the cases will have near-identical discovery, evidence, and witnesses. Given this significant factual, legal, and evidentiary overlap, consolidating the cases will reduce costs for the parties and save the parties, the Court, and the jury an immense amount of time.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court ORDERS that this case is to be consolidated with Fritts, et al. v. Lockton, Inc., 4:26-cv-00185-DGK (W.D. Mo. March 6, 2026). All future filings in the above-listed case shall be filed in Case No. 26-cv-185- DGK only. Alexandr Rudenco of Milberg PLLC and Mark Gyandoh of Capozzi Adler, P.C., shall serve as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Maureen Brady of McShane Brady Law shall serve as Interim Liaison Counsel. All pending deadlines in these cases are VACATED, and Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a consolidated class action complaint by July 10, 2026. The parties are ORDERED to submit a single proposed scheduling order to the courtroom deputy by July 17, 2026. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint on or before August 25, 2026. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file their response on or before September 25, 2026, and Defendants shall reply fourteen days thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: June 11, 2026 /s/ Greg Kays GREG KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT