948 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1991), 90-16359, Mertens v. Black

Docket Nº:90-16359, 90-16437 and 90-16439.
Citation:948 F.2d 1105
Party Name:William J. MERTENS; Alex W. Bandrowski; James E. Clarke; Russell Franz, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles H. BLACK; Gerald G. Ferro; Richard N. Gary; Charles S. Holmes; Patrick J. Hunt; Robert Merrick; George M. Perry; Monty H. Rial; M. Edward Steward; Miles G. Yeagley, Defendants-Appellants, and Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, Defendant. William J. M
Case Date:November 04, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1105

948 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1991)

William J. MERTENS; Alex W. Bandrowski; James E. Clarke;

Russell Franz, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Charles H. BLACK; Gerald G. Ferro; Richard N. Gary;

Charles S. Holmes; Patrick J. Hunt; Robert Merrick;

George M. Perry; Monty H. Rial; M. Edward Steward; Miles

G. Yeagley, Defendants-Appellants,

and

Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, Defendant.

William J. MERTENS, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KAISER STEEL RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Defendant-Appellant.

William J. MERTENS, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant,

and

Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, et al., Defendant.

Nos. 90-16359, 90-16437 and 90-16439.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 4, 1991

Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 1991.

Julia A. Molander, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants.

Jean Marie Breen, Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., defendant-appellant in No. 90-16439 and defendant-appellee in Nos. 90-16359 and 90-16437.

Page 1106

Alfred H. Sigman, Sigman & Lewis, Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before NORRIS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. [*]

PER CURIAM:

Participants in the Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan ("the Plan") brought this action to restore to the Plan losses allegedly resulting from breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the Plan's Investment Committee. Appellants, eleven individual members of the Plan's Investment Committee, appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. 744 F.Supp. 917. Appellants contend the prior judgment in Horan v. Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, on appeal as Koch v. Kaiser Steel Retirement Plan, No. 89-56115 et seq., has preclusive effect here and bars relitigation of the ERISA fiduciary duty issues. We affirm the district court's denial of the summary judgment motion, although for reasons different from those given by the district court.

Before applying either claim preclusion or issue preclusion, the moving party must demonstrate that the party against whom preclusion is sought was a party to the prior action, or in privity with a party to the prior action...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP