Norris v. Mazzola
| Decision Date | 07 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.15–cv–04962–JSC |
| Citation | 231 F.Supp.3d 412 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Robert Bradley NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. Lawrence J. MAZZOLA, et al., Defendants. |
Colin David Wells, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joseph P. Hoag, Richard J. Birmingham, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.
James P. Baker, Christina Wong, Baker & McKenzie LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, a union plumber, participants in the Local 17 pension plan in Memphis, Tennessee. In 2012 and 2013, he worked in the Bay Area for an employer who was a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 38. Pursuant to that agreement, his employer made pension plan contributions to the Local 38 pension plan. Local 38 subsequently transferred to Local 17 $4.45 of the more than $19 per hour of pension contributions made to the Local 38 plan on Plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff claims that under ERISA, the Local 38 plan may not retain any portion of pension contributions employers made to it on behalf of workers who have designated a different plan as their "home fund," and instead, must transfer all of those contributions to the respective worker's home fund.
The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are now pending before the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 77 & 89.) Having considered the parties' written submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on December 8, 2016, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants improperly retained employer contributions made on Plaintiff's behalf while he was working in Local 38's jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Robert Bradley Norris is a plumber and member in good standing of United Association Local 17 ("Local 17"), which is located in Memphis, Tennessee. (Dkt. No. 80 at ¶ 2.) He is also a participant in the Local 17 Defined Benefit Pension Plan ("the Local 17 Plan"). (Id. at ¶ 3.) In August 2011, he obtained a travel card from Local 17 and relocated to San Francisco, California. (Dkt. No. 90–2 at 10:3–13; 14:17–20.) Plaintiff then sought work through United Association Local 38 ("Local 38") as a journeyman plumber and designated the Local 17 Plan as his "Home Fund." (Dkt. No. 80 ¶ 3.)
Nearly a year later, he was hired by ACCO Engineering, a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with the Local 38 Union. (Id. ; Dkt. No. 90–2 at 23:12–24.) From July 2, 2012 until July 1, 2013, Plaintiff worked 1738 hours under a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to which ACCO Engineering made contributions on his behalf to the Local 38 Plan (the "Local 38 Plan"). (Id. at 24:11–13; Dkt. Nos. 54–8 at 41–46 & 54–9 at 2–6.1 ) ACCO Engineering contributed to the Plan at the rate of $19.18 for hours worked in 2012 and $19.83 per hour for hours worked in 2013. (Dkt. No. 78–5.) Of these contributions, the Plan transferred $4.45 per hour Plaintiff worked to the Local 17 Plan and retained the remainder. (Dkt. No. 54–8 at 5.)
Both Local 17 and Local 38 are signatories to the United Association Pension Fund Reciprocal Agreement ("Reciprocal Agreement"). (Dkt. No. 57–2; Dkt. No. 78–1; Dkt. No. 79 at ¶ 3.) The Reciprocal Agreement, Section 3, states in relevant part:
Each Visited Fund shall make an accounting monthly of the Employer Contributions received by it during the month on behalf of Travelers and shall remit those Employer Contributions to the Home Fund upon receipt but no later than 45 calendar days after the end of the calendar month during which the Employer Contributions were paid to the Visited Fund, provided that the Home Fund certifies to the satisfaction of the Reciprocity Committee that the Traveler shall receive full credit for all Employer Contributions received by the Home Fund pursuant to this Agreement. Where such certification is not provided to the Reciprocity Committee, the Visited Fund may forward contributions equal to the contributions required for pension benefits under the collective bargaining agreement of the Home Local.
(Dkt. No. 54–2 at 3 (emphasis added).) As a signatory to the Reciprocal Agreement, the Local 38 Plan was required to transfer contributions made to the Plan on behalf of travelling employees such as Plaintiff to the travelling employee's Home Fund if the Home Fund certifies to the Reciprocity Committee that the travelling employee shall receive full credit for all employer contributions the Home Fund receives on the employee's behalf. (Id. ; Dkt. No. 54–8 at 5; Dkt. No. 79 at ¶ 5.) Since 2004, Local 17 (Plaintiff's "Home Fund") has had a "Full Credit Certification" on file with the reciprocity office. (Dkt. No. 79 ¶ 4.)
On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff wrote the Local 38 Plan Trustees (the "Trustees") requesting Plan documents and other information associated with the Plan operation. (Dkt. No. 54–3 at 2.) Plaintiff identified himself as "participant in the Local 38 Pension Plan." (Id. ) Two weeks later, on December 15, the Plan's legal counsel responded by refusing to provide any of the requested documents because Plaintiff was not a Plan participant. (Dkt. No. 54–4.) Just over six months later, on June 23, 2015, Plaintiff, through legal counsel, wrote again identifying himself as a Local 38 plan participant and requesting Plan documents and other information. (Dkt. No. 54–5 at 3.) A month later, Peter Machi, the Plan Administrator, responded by reiterating that Plaintiff was not a Plan participant and that he was not owed any additional employer pension contributions. (Dkt. No. 54–8.) This time, however, Machi attached some Plan documents and information sought and requested that Plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. ) Two more letters were exchanged prior to Plaintiff's September 15, 2015 submission of an appeal to the Plan. (Dkt. Nos. 54–13, 54–14, 54–15.) In his appeal, Plaintiff contested the determination that he was not a Plan participant and that he was not entitled to any additional contributions or benefits under the Plan or ERISA. (Dkt. No. 54–15.) When he did not receive a response or acknowledgment of his appeal after nearly a month, his counsel sent a letter following up regarding the status. (Dkt. No. 54–16.) Two days later, Machi responded that the appeal had not been processed because Plaintiff failed to provide certain information. (Dkt. No. 54–17.)
Plaintiff provided Machi with the additional information and immediately filed the underlying complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class seeking to recover reciprocity contributions and the earnings thereon which were improperly withheld by Defendants: the Plan, the Plan Trustees, and Peter Machi, the Plan Administrator. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff pleads four claims for relief under ERISA, Section 502, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1132 : (1) Section 502(a)(1)(B), (2) Section 502(a)(2), (3) Section 502(a)(3), and (4) ERISA Sections 502(c)(1), 502(a)(2) or 502(a)(3). Plaintiff seeks an accrued benefit on contributions wrongfully withheld, to recover all losses due to Defendants' breach of the Plan terms and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking action prohibited by the Plan, the Reciprocal Agreement, and ERISA.
Defendants previously moved to dismiss on many of the same grounds at issue here. (Dkt. No. 54.) The Court denied the motion. (Dkt. No. 64.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for statutory damages under Section 502(a)(1)(A) and Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. Nos. 66 & 73.) The Court denied the motions without prejudice to renewal in the context of summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 74.) The Court set a briefing schedule for summary judgment noting that it would set a briefing schedule for class certification upon disposition of the motions for summary judgment. The now pending cross-motions for summary judgment followed. (Dkt. Nos. 77 & 89.)
Plaintiff's core contention is that Defendants were required to transfer all pension contributions made on his behalf to his Home Fund, not just $4.45 of the more than $19.00 per hour contributed. The Court first addresses Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the threshold questions of: (1) whether Plaintiff exhausted his claim before filing suit, and (2) if so, whether he has Article III standing to bring his claims. The Court then turns to whether Plaintiff qualifies as a Local 38 Plan participant. Finally, the Court examines the merits of Plaintiff's ERISA claims.
"As a general rule, an ERISA claimant must exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a claim in federal court." Barboza v. California Ass'n of Professional Firefighters , 651 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011).
Defendants first argue that Plaintiff never made a benefits claim and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies as a matter of law. Plaintiff, for his part, insists that his first communication with the Local 38 Trustees on December 2, 2014 was a benefits claim because in his letter he claimed to be a Plan participant, claimed that contributions had been made on his behalf between July 2012 and September 2013, and claimed that as a Plan participant he was entitled to certain documents to check on the status of such contributions and benefits. (Dkt. No. 54–3.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants made an adverse benefits determination regarding his benefits claim when, two weeks later, a Plan Administrator attorney responded by declining to provide Plaintiff with documents because he was "not a ‘participant’ in the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan." (Dkt. No. 54–4 at 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial