Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06830/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06830-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHADE CONSTRUCTION &

ENGINEERING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-6830 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING AND ADDITIONAL

EVIDENCE FOR PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 18)

Based upon the review of Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, the Court orders

supplemental briefing and evidence regarding the fiduciary status of Mr. Scott Shade. 

The issue is whether, taking all allegations in the complaint as true, Plaintiffs have

established that Mr. Shade may be held individually liable as a fiduciary, as defined by 29 U.S.C. §

1109(a), because he exercised authority or control respecting management or disposition of the trust

funds’ assets.

In determining whether a person has authority or control, courts have emphasized that a

person’s job title is not controlling. As stated by one court:

ERISA “defines ‘fiduciary’ not in terms of formal trusteeship, but in

functional terms” of control and authority over the management or

disposition of plan assets, “thus expanding the universe of persons

subject to fiduciary duties-and to damages-under” section 1109. This

functional approach emphasizes that the acts or responsibilities, not

the job title or whether they performed those acts on someone else’s

behalf, controls whether fiduciary liability exists. “[A] person’s

actions, not the official designation of his role, determine[s] whether

he enjoys fiduciary status.”

Case 4:06-cv-06830-PJH Document 26 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Trustees of S. Cal. Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Temecula Mechanical, Inc., 438 F. Supp.

2d 1156, 1168 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Acosta v. Pacific Enterprises, 950 F.2d 611, 618 (9th Cir.

1991) (denying that a trustee has fiduciary duty because “a person’s actions, not the official

designation of his role, determine whether he enjoys fiduciary status”and because plaintiff could not

demonstrate the defendant’s actions. Id.). See, e.g., Kayes v. Pacific Lumber Co., 51 F.3d 1449,

1459 (9th Cir. 1995) (“This court has held corporate officers to be liable as fiduciaries on the basis

of their conduct and authority with respect to ERISA plans. In Yeseta we held that by withdrawing

funds from plan assets a corporate officer of a plan sponsor was a fiduciary, whether or not the

sponsoring corporation authorized him to make such withdrawals...”). Plaintiffs have failed to make

any allegations or provide any evidence that Mr. Shade is liable as a fiduciary because of his actions

or responsibilities with respect to the trust fund assets (i.e., the contributions owed to the trust

funds). Plaintiffs have done little more than point to his status as CEO and president of Shade

Corporation.

Thus, supplemental briefing and additional evidence should be provided and filed with the

Court by August 3, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06830-PJH Document 26 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 2