Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0935-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ly NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RTS PACKAGING LLC CONSOLIDATED PENSION PLAN; RTS Packaging, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-55688
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Michael I. Goode, Michael I. Goode, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Ian Hugh Morrison, Esquire, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, IL, Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esquire, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ly Nguyen appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging that defendants RTS Packaging LLC Consolidated Pension Plan (the “Plan”) and RTS Packaging, LLC, violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for surviving spouse benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nguyen’s claim that the Plan’s duration-of-relationship requirement for survivor benefits was discriminatory because Nguyen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were state actors. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 923-24, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982) (Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state action); George v. Pac.-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (actions against private parties for violation of constitutional rights require a showing that the private parties’ conduct constituted state action).

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