NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LEHMAN, on behalf of himself No. 18-35321
and others similarly situated; MICHAEL
PUTERBAUGH, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01835-RSM
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WARNER NELSON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 13, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District
Judge.
The Trustees of the IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund (the “Pacific Coast
Fund” or the “Fund”) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
in favor of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) class
action Plaintiffs-Appellees (“the Class”). We affirm.
Following this Court’s remand in Lehman v. Nelson, 862 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir.
2017) (“Lehman I”), the district court held that Amendment 24 to the Pacific Coast
Fund Pension Plan (the “Pension Plan” or the “Plan”) violates the plain language
of section 5.04 in Article 5 of the Plan. This section requires the transfer of all
employer contributions received on behalf of travelers in the electrical construction
industry who work in the jurisdictions of other local union pension funds. The
court held that the Trustees of the Fund cannot distinguish between “benefit” and
“non-benefit” contributions where it concerns travelers.
“Where an ERISA Plan grants discretionary authority to determine
eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, a plan administrator’s
interpretation of a plan is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Lehman I, 862 F.3d at
1216 (quoting Tapley v. Locals 302 & 612 of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-
Emp’rs Constr. Indus. Ret. Plan, 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013)). We review
the district court’s application of this standard and the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo. See id. On appeal, the Class contends that we should
review the Trustees’ interpretation of Amendment 24 de novo because the issue in
this case is purely a legal question and does not concern any interpretation of the
Plan. As in Lehman I, we need not decide this issue as the Trustees’ arguments in
2
support of their interpretation of Amendment 24 fail even under the deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Class.
Like Amendment 14 in Lehman I, the Trustees’ interpretation of Amendment 24
with regard to travelers’ contributions is inconsistent and conflicts with the Pacific
Coast Plan’s own definition of “contribution” found in section 1.04, and conflicts
with and renders nugatory section 5.04. Section 5.04 of the Pension Plan
incorporates the Reciprocal Agreement signed by the Pacific Coast Fund. Pursuant
to section 5.04, travelers’ contributions are simply pass-through contributions
made to the travelers’ home funds and are not assets of the Pacific Coast Fund.
The Trustees’ attempts to distinguish “benefit” and “non-benefit” contributions
pursuant to collective bargaining agreements are unavailing—any contributions on
behalf of a traveler must be passed through under the Plan. Because travelers’
contributions do not belong to the Pacific Coast Fund, the district court’s order did
not violate the Pension Protection Act of 2006, nor did the order require the
Trustees to violate their fiduciary duties under ERISA.
AFFIRMED.
3