Case ID: f-appx_491/html/0830-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; Board of Trustees, Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mark Alan LINDQUIST, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-16943.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    George Martin Kraw, Senior, Michael J. Korda, Katherine A. McDonough, Lisa Marie Schwantz, Kraw & Kraw, Mountain View, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Mark Alan Lindquist, Orinda, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Alan Lindquist appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in an action by his company’s pension plan to impose joint and several withdrawal liability against him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), as amended by the Mul-tiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(2). We review de novo, Bd. of Trs. of the W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Lafrenz, 837 F.2d 892, 893 n. 2 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindquist failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he operated a “trade or business” under “common control” by leasing property to the company in which he was the sole shareholder when it withdrew from the pension plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1); see also Lafrenz, 837 F.2d at 894-95 (a for-profit truck leasing operation owned by the majority shareholders of an employer withdrawing from a pension plan constituted a “trade or business” under “common control” for purposes of imposing joint and several withdrawal liability under ERISA).

Lindquist’s argument that the district court should have applied a different definition of “trade or business” is unpersuasive. See Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 27 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed.2d 25 (1987) (confining its statutory construction of the phrase “trade or business” to the tax code provision at issue).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.