From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Nat'l Pension Fund

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 23, 2016
No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)

Opinion

No. 16-15228

12-23-2016

TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. LOCAL 38 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPE FITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04703-YGR MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 13, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------

Trustees of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan ("Local 38") appeal the district court's denial of its motion to vacate the arbitrator's award and the district court's confirmation of the arbitration awards. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The parties proceeded to arbitration after the arbitrator found that the preconditions to arbitration had been met. The parties stipulated that if the arbitrator found liability, and the parties could not agree on the amount due, the arbitrator "would retain jurisdiction" to decide the amount due. This stipulation controls, and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by determining that Pension Protection Act (PPA) contributions were part of the amount Local 38 owed.

The arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by determining that PPA contributions were part of "Employer Contributions" that must be remitted under the terms of the United Association Pension Fund Reciprocal Agreement. There is no "well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable" law that bars PPA contributions from being reciprocated. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis removed) (quoting Carter v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)). The arbitrator could not, therefore, have manifestly disregarded the law. See id. at 879-80.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Nat'l Pension Fund

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 23, 2016
No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)
Case details for

Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Nat'l Pension Fund

Case Details

Full title:TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. LOCAL 38 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 23, 2016

Citations

No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)

Citing Cases

Norris v. Mazzola

Id. § 1085(c)(1).In the other action in this District involving pension contributions made to Local 38 on a…

Lehman v. Nelson

Plaintiffs argue that "[n]othing in the Pension Protection Act prohibits or requires Defendants or the…