MEMORANDUM & ORDER In August 2005, Ralph Hoeffner, Anthony Longo, Anthony Tomaszweski, and Kenneth Resse (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”) were among a group of unionized asphalt plant workers who voted to change their collective bargaining representatives from the Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Ashes and Material Yard Workers Local Union No. 1175 (“Local 1175″) to the United Plant & Production Workers Local No. 175 (“Local 175″). Upon joining Local 175, Named Plaintiffs also switched to the pension and welfare plans associated with their new union. Since 2009, Named Plaintiffs have been engaged in this lawsuit with Defendants who are the trustees of Local 1175′s pension and welfare funds over whether those funds were obligated to transfer a share of the assets to the new plans, and if so, how to accurately calculate the amount that should be transferred. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining claims for lack of Article III standing in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (2020). (Dkt. 329.) For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. BACKGROUND The parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case is presumed, and the Court summarizes here only those facts relevant to the instant motion. I. Factual Background In August 2005, Named Plaintiffs and other unionized asphalt plant workers voted to switch their collective bargaining representative from Local 1175 to Local 175. (Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), Dkt. 53,
8-11, 32; January 19, 2012 Order (“2012 Order”) by Judge Allyne R. Ross, Dkt. 72, at 2-3.) After this change in union representatives, the employers of these unionized workers stopped contributing to the pension and welfare funds associated with Local 1175 (collectively, “the Local 1175 Funds”, and respectively “the Local 1175 Pension Fund” and “the Local 1175 Welfare Fund”). (Am. Compl., Dkt. 53, 32; 2012 Order, Dkt. 72, at 3.) Employer contributions for Named Plaintiffs and others who switched to Local 175 were thereafter directed to the pension and welfare funds associated with that union (collectively, “the Local 175 Funds”, and respectively “the Local 175 Pension Fund” and “the Local 175 Welfare Fund”). (Am. Compl., Dkt. 53, 32; 2012 Order, Dkt. 72, at 3.) In November 2007, Named Plaintiffs and other plan participants who switched their pension and benefit plans to the Local 175 Funds requested a transfer of “their aliquot share of assets” from the Local 1175 Funds to the Local 175 Funds. (2012 Order, Dkt. 72, at 3; September 30, 2016 Order (“2016 Order”), Dkt. 231, at 2; March 29, 2019 Order (“2019 Order”), Dkt. 299, at 2-3.) In April 2008, this group again requested the asset transfer, which Defendants rejected. (2012 Order, Dkt. 72, at 3-4; 2016 Order, Dkt. 231, at 2-3; 2019 Order, Dkt. 299, at 3; Named Plaintiffs’ Exhibit K, Dkt. 67-3, at ECF1 42-44.) II. Procedural History Named Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 22, 2009, alleging that Defendants were required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) to transfer the aliquot share of assets attributable to contributions made on behalf of the putative class members by their employers to the respective Local 175 Funds. (See generally Dkt. 1.) On March 21, 2011, Named Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional claims and to propose separate subclasses for the claims related to the Local 175 Pension Fund and the Local 175 Welfare Fund. (Am. Compl., Dkt. 53,
