Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 5, 2002 Decided April 23, 2002

No. 01-7078

Robert E. Hartline, et al.,
Appellants

v.

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, et al.,
Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(98cv01274)

David S. Preminger argued the cause for appellants. With
him on the briefs was George M. Chuzi.

Steuart H. Thomsen argued the cause for appellees. With
him on the brief were Nicholas T. Christakos and Stephen M.
Rosenblatt.

 Before: Edwards and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and
Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: The parties have raised two main issues on
appeal. The first is whether a transferee court is bound by
the substantive law of the transferor court when a federal law
claim is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1404(a). The
second is whether the actions taken by the appellees with
respect to the multiemployer pension plan were actions sub-
ject to review under the fiduciary duty provisions found in
section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. s 1104(a)(1).

For the reasons stated by the district court in its memoran-
dum opinion of May 4, 1999, we affirm the district court's
decision to apply the law of this Circuit. See Hartline v.
Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, No. 98-1274
(D.D.C. May 4, 1999). When a case that is governed by
federal law is transferred from one federal court to another,
the transferee court should decide the federal claim based on
its own circuit's interpretation of the law. See Korean Air
Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that
transferee courts are not bound to apply the decisions of
transferor courts with respect to federal law claims).

In addition, for the reasons stated by the district court in
its memorandum opinion of September 14, 2000, we affirm the
district court's conclusion that the changes the appellees
made to the multiemployer pension plan at issue in this case
did not constitute a fiduciary act. See Hartline v. Sheet
Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1
(D.D.C. 2000). The Supreme Court made it clear in Curtiss-
Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 (1995), Lock-
heed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), and Hughes Aircraft
Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999), that employers and plan
sponsors do not act in a fiduciary capacity when they modify,
adopt or amend plans. Nothing in the Supreme Court's
decisions or ERISA itself creates an exemption for multiem-
ployer pension plans. Therefore, the district court correctly
concluded that the multiemployer pension fund trustees in-
volved in this case did not act in a fiduciary capacity when

they made changes affecting the determination of appellants'
benefits. See, e.g., Walling v. Brady, 125 F.3d 114 (3d Cir.
1997) (holding that multiemployer pension fund trustees do
not act in a fiduciary duty when designing or amending the
plan).