Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-07078/USCOURTS-caDC-01-07078-0/pdf.json

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

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 5, 2002 Decided April 23, 2002

No. 01-7078

Robert E. Hartline, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(98cv01274)

David S. Preminger argued the cause for appellants. With

him on the briefs was George M. Chuzi.

Steuart H. Thomsen argued the cause for appellees. With

him on the brief were Nicholas T. Christakos and Stephen M.

Rosenblatt.

USCA Case #01-7078 Document #673065 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards and Randolph, Circuit Judges, and

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: The parties have raised two main issues on

appeal. The first is whether a transferee court is bound by

the substantive law of the transferor court when a federal law

claim is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1404(a). The

second is whether the actions taken by the appellees with

respect to the multiemployer pension plan were actions subject to review under the fiduciary duty provisions found in

section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. s 1104(a)(1).

For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion of May 4, 1999, we affirm the district court's

decision to apply the law of this Circuit. See Hartline v.

Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, No. 98-1274

(D.D.C. May 4, 1999). When a case that is governed by

federal law is transferred from one federal court to another,

the transferee court should decide the federal claim based on

its own circuit's interpretation of the law. See Korean Air

Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that

transferee courts are not bound to apply the decisions of

transferor courts with respect to federal law claims).

In addition, for the reasons stated by the district court in

its memorandum opinion of September 14, 2000, we affirm the

district court's conclusion that the changes the appellees

made to the multiemployer pension plan at issue in this case

did not constitute a fiduciary act. See Hartline v. Sheet

Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, 134 F. Supp. 2d 1

(D.D.C. 2000). The Supreme Court made it clear in CurtissWright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 (1995), Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), and Hughes Aircraft

Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999), that employers and plan

sponsors do not act in a fiduciary capacity when they modify,

adopt or amend plans. Nothing in the Supreme Court's

decisions or ERISA itself creates an exemption for multiemployer pension plans. Therefore, the district court correctly

concluded that the multiemployer pension fund trustees involved in this case did not act in a fiduciary capacity when

USCA Case #01-7078 Document #673065 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

they made changes affecting the determination of appellants'

benefits. See, e.g., Walling v. Brady, 125 F.3d 114 (3d Cir.

1997) (holding that multiemployer pension fund trustees do

not act in a fiduciary duty when designing or amending the

plan).

USCA Case #01-7078 Document #673065 Filed: 04/23/2002 Page 3 of 3