Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

JUL 2 4 2018 . 

CLERK US ,: , 

SOUTHERN ois. DISTRICT COURT 

BY . ~CALIFORNIA DEPUTY ' 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 LARRY D. KERNS, Case No.: 16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

12 Plaintiff, ORDER 

13 v. 

14 MATHEW l WENNER, 

15 Defendant. 

16 HA YES, Judge: 

1 7 The matter before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant 

18 Mathew Wenner, (ECF No. 152). 

19 I. BACKGROUND 

20 On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Larry D. Kerns initiated this action by filing a 

21 Complaint against Defendants Mathew J. Wenner, Hugh Gaylord, Edward Treacy, Thomas 

22 Samecki, George Tedeschi, Charles Kamen, and John D, Bachler. (ECF No. 1 ). Plaintiff 

23 brings causes of action for mail fraud and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities 

24 Act ("ADA") and seeks $3,000,000 in punitive damages. The allegations of the Complaint 

25 relate to Plaintiffs benefits under a Retirement Benefit Plan of the GCIU-Employment 

26 Retirement Fund. Id Defendants Gaylord, Treacy, Samecki, Tedeschi, Kamen, and 

27 Bachler were dismissed from this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 39). Defendant Mathew 

28 Wenner ("Defendant") is the only defendant remaining in this action. 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
1 On January 18, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

2 152). On January 22, 2018, Defendant filed a certificate of service of the motion for 

3 summary judgment asserting that service was completed by mail and email on January 22, 

4 2018. (ECF No. 159). 

5 On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter in response to the motion for summary 

6 judgment. (ECF No. 161). Plaintiff asserted that the motion was untimely because 

7 Defendant failed to file proof of service with the motion and missed the January 19, 2018 

8 filing deadline set in the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 105) .. 

9 On February 15, 2018, Defendant filed a reply in support of the motion for summary 

10 judgment. (ECF No. 176). Defendant asserted that service was not completed on the same 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

day the motion was filed because an employee at defense counsel's firm "did not realize 

that Plaintiff could not be served via the court's ECF system." (ECF No. 176-1 at 3). 

On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendant's reply. (ECF No. 

178). Plaintiff reasserts his position that "Defendant's motion for sum[a]ry judgement; 

[sic] did not; and has not; met proof of service, required by; Local Civil Rule 5.4 Electronic 

Case Filing; (c); on or before; the 1/19/2018, deadline for filing motions." (ECF No. 178 

at 1). 

On May 4, 2018, the Court entered an Order stating in part: 

Defendant filed the motion for summary judgment prior to the Court's 

January 19, 2018 deadline and submits sufficient evidence to establish that 

the short delay in completing service of the motion was inadvertent. The Court 

will consider the motion for summary judgment to be timely filed and will 

rule on the substantive arguments raised in the motion. See Eitel v. McCool, 

782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting "the strong policy underlying the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits"). However, 

the Court will provide Plaintiff the opportunity to file another response to 

Defendant's motion for summary judgment which addresses the substantive 

issues raised by Defendant. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any response in 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment on or before May 17, 

2018. Defendant shall file any reply on May 24, 2018. 

2 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
,/ 

1 

2 (ECF No. 191 ). 

3 On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary 

4 judgment. (ECF No. 194). 

5 On May 24, 2018, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 203). 

6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 

7 "A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-or 

8 the part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall 

9 grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

10 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11 56(a). A material fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose 

12 existence might affect the outcome of the suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. 

13 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The materiality of a fact is determined 

14 by the substantive law governing the claim or defense. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

15 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 

16 The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is proper. 

17 See Adickes v. S.H Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153 (1970). The burden then shifts to the 

18 opposing party to provide admissible evidence beyond the pleadings to show that summary 

19 judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 4 77 U.S. at 256; Celotex, 4 77 U.S. at 322, 324. 

20 The opposing party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be 

21 drawn in his favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. To avoid summary judgment, the 

22 opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations of fact or law. See Berg v. 

23 Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). The nonmovant must designate which 

24 specific facts show that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 4 77 U.S. at 256. 

25 III. CONTENTIONS 

26 Defendant contends that "Plaintiff's claims relate to the Retirement Benefit Plan of 

27 the GCIU Employer Retirement Fund, which is governed [by] the Employee Retirement 

28 Income Security Act ("ERISA")." (ECF No. 152 at 2). Defendant contends that he is 

3 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
1 entitled to summary judgment because ERISA provides the exclusive remedy available to 

2 Plaintiff and Plaintiff has already recovered the maximum relief allowable under ERIS A 

3 for a delay in receiving a benefit. Id. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover 

4 punitive damages under ERISA. Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot "plead around 

5 the exclusive nature of ERISA's civil enforcement scheme" by characterizing his claims 

6 as mail fraud and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 152-1at2). 

7 Plaintiff contends that "there is a genuine dispute and the ERISA; does not even 

8 come close; to Superseding; any FEDERAL LAW; or have any exclusive; right to do 

9 anything but; "Get First Dibs"; they forfeited their First Dibs, by their own choice." (ECF 

10 No. 194) at 3. Plaintiff contends that all federal law, including mail fraud "will continue 

11 to be applicable to any victim." Id. Plaintiff attaches copies of numerous documents to his 

12 response in opposition, including publications from the National Criminal Justice 

13 Reference Service and an article from the Cornell Law Review. 1 

14 IV. FACTS 

15 Defendant provides a declaration by Mathew Wenner and a Memorandum of Action 

16 on Appeal from the Board of Trustees of the GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund to establish 

17 the following undisputed facts. Plaintiff is a participant in the Retirement Benefit Plan of 

18 the GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund. (Wenner Deel., ECF No. 152-3 at 2). The 

19 Retirement Benefit Plan is a "multiemployer defined benefit plan governed by ... ERISA 

20 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq." (Memo of Action from Trustees of the GCIU Retirement 

21 Benefit Plan, ECF No. 152-4 at 3). It provides "retirement benefits (service retirement 

22 benefits - early or normal - and disability retirement benefits)" to eligible participants in 

23 the Graphic Communications Industry. Id. Defendant is "employed by the Benefit 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 The Court has previously considered and ruled on Plaintiffs objections related to the service of 

Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 191). Accordingly, the Court does not address the 

parties' contentions on this issue. · 

4 

l 6cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
1 Programs Administrator and [is] the Administrator of the GCIU Retirement Plan." 

2 (Wenner Deel., ECF No. 152-3 at 2). 

3 The Board of Trustees of the GCIU-Bmployer Retirement Fund reviews appeals 

4 requested by participants or beneficiaries and issues decisions affirming, modifying, or 

5 setting aside the decision or action being appealed. (Memo of Action from Trustees of the 

6 GCIU Retirement Benefit Plan, BCF No. 152-4 at 3). On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff 

7 submitted a "signed Application for Retirement - Part I" to the Administrative Office of 

8 the GCIU-Bmployer Retirement Fund" and requested "a disability retirement benefit." Id. 

9 at 2. The Administrative Office denied his request on March 25, 2016 after concluding 

10 that Plaintiff was not entitled to a disability retirement benefit. Id. at 2, 6-8. The denial 

11 letter "indicated that the response served as a benefit claim denial under BRISA Section 

12 503, 29 U.S.C. Section 1133" and advised Plaintiff of his appeal rights under the 

13 Retirement Plan. Id. at 2. Plaintiff appealed the denial of his request for a disability 

14 retirement benefit on April 9, 2016. Id. On August 16, 2016, the Board of Trustees 

15 affirmed the Administrative Office's decision that Plaintiff was not entitled to a disability 

16 retirement benefit under the Retirement Plan. Id. at 7. However, the Board of Trustees 

17 determined that Plaintiff was "entitled to a Service Retirement Benefit" under the 

18 Retirement Plan. Id. The decision of the Board of Trustees stated that Plaintiff "is, 

19 however, awarded an early retirement benefit retroactive to October 1, 2003, with interest, 

20 in accordance with the provisions of the Retirement Plan." Id. at 8; see also Wenner Deel., 

21 BCF No. 152-3 at 2. "Plaintiff was then paid his normal service retirement benefits 

22 retroactively as awarded in the Memorandum of Action, and he has been and is continuing 

23 to be paid his monthly service retirement benefit." (Wenner Deel., ECF No. 152-3 at 2). 

24 III. ANALYSIS 

25 BRISA comprehensively regulates employee welfare benefit plans "maintained for 

26 the purpose of providing for its participants ... through the purchase of insurance or 

27 otherwise, ... medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of 

28 sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment .... " 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). BRISA 

5 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
1 comprehensively regulates employee pension benefit plans "established or maintained by 

2 an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that by its express 

3 terms or as a result of surrounding circumstances such plan, fund, or program ... provides 

4 retirement income to employees." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)(i). 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

"Congress enacted ERISA to 'protect ... the interests of participants in employee 

benefit plans and their beneficiaries' by setting out substantive regulatory requirements for 

employee benefit plans and to 'provid[ e] for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready 

access to the Federal courts."' Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004) 

(quoting 29 U.S.C. § lOOl(b)). ERISA "provide[s] a uniform regulatory regime over 

employee benefit plans" through its "integrated enforcement mechanism," ERISA § 502, 

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a).2 Id. 

[T]he detailed provisions of § 502(a) set forth a comprehensive civil 

enforcement scheme that represents a careful balancing of the need for prompt 

and fair claims settlement procedures against the public interest in 

encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans. The policy choices 

reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under 

the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan 

participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that 

Congress rejected in ERISA. "The six carefully integrated civil enforcement 

provisions found in§ 502(a) of the statute as finally enacted ... provide strong 

evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it 

simply forgot to incorporate expressly." Russell, supra, at 146, 105 S.Ct., at 

3092 (emphasis in original). 

2 ERISA includes "expansive pre-emption provisions, see ERISA § 514, 29 U.S.C. § 1144, which are 

intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be 'exclusively a federal concern."' Aetna 

Health, 542 U.S. at 208 (citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523 (1981)). "A state 

law claim is preempted by ERISA if it has a 'connection with' or a 'reference to' an ERISA-govemed 

benefit plan." Wise v. Verizon Commc 'ns, Inc., 600 F .3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Metro. Life 

27 Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 (1985)). Plaintiff does not bring any state law claims in his 

Complaint. 28 

6 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
1 Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 54 (1987). "ERISA's civil enforcement 

2 provision outlines the possible claims by a participant or beneficiary." Bast v. Prudential 

3 Ins. Co. of America, 150 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Aug. 3, 1998) 

4 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132; ERISA § 502(a)). 

5 Under ERISA, a participant or beneficiary to an ERISA-regulated plan may bring a 

6 civil action: (1) "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his 

7 rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the plan," 

8 29 U.S.C. § l 132(a)(l)(B); (2) for a breach of fiduciary duties, 29 U.S.C. § l 132(a)(2), or; 

9 (3) or to enjoin violations of ERISA or terms of the plan or to obtain other appropriate 

10 equitable relief, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). See also Bast, 150 F.3d at 1008. However, 

11 "[ e ]xtracontractual, compensatory and punitive damages are not available under ERISA." 

12 Id. at 1109 (citing Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985)); Sokol v. 

13 Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

14 Plaintiff seeks relief based on the denial of benefits owed to him under the 

15 Retirement Benefit Plan of the GCIU Employer Retirement Fund between 2003 and 2016. 

16 Plaintiff seeks three million dollars in punitive damages from Defendant, the administrator 

1 7 of the Retirement Plan, based on the delay in receiving his benefit under the Retirement 

18 Plan. It is undisputed that Retirement Benefit Plan is regulated under ERISA. 

19 Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for relief for the delay in receiving certain benefits under 

20 his ERISA-regulated Retirement Plan arises under ERISA. 

21 Plaintiff, a participant in an ERISA-regulated plan, cannot recover punitive damages 

22 in this civil suit as a matter of law. See Bast, 150 F.3d at 1109; Russell, 473 U.S. at 148 

23 ("Thus, the relevant text of ERISA, the structure of the entire statute, and its legislative 

24 history all support the conclusion that in § 409(a) Congress did not provide, and did not 

25 intend the judiciary to imply, a cause of action for extra-contractual damages caused by 

26 improper or untimely processing of benefit claims."); Concha v. London, 62 F .3d 1493, 

27 1504 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he Supreme Court held that relief under ERISA section 

28 l 132(a)(3) is limited to remedies available in equity, such as injunction, mandamus, and 

7 

16cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
1 restitution. Such relief does not include compensatory or punitive damages."). Under 

2 ERISA and binding authority from the Supreme Court of the United States and Ninth 

3 Circuit Court of Appeals, Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages from the administrator 

4 of the Retirement Plan based on his delay in receiving benefits under the Retirement Plan. 

5 Alternatively, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on 

6 Plaintiffs claims for mail fraud and a violation of the ADA. Plaintiff asserts that the 

7 communications related to the delay in receiving his benefits under the Retirement Plan 

8 support a mail fraud cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 194 at 

9 7, 30). However, the criminal mail fraud statute does not provide authority for a private 

10 cause of action. See Ross v. Orange Cty. Bar Ass 'n, 369 F. App'x 868, 869 (9th Cir. 2010) 

11 (citing Wilcox v. First Int'! Bank of Oregon, 815 F.2d 522, 533 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987)) ("Ross 

12 had no separate private right of action for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341."). With 

13 respect to the ADA claim, Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered a brain injury and is disabled 

14 but provides no admissible evidence to support a cause of action under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. 

15 §§ 12101 et seq. Plaintiff does not identify a Title of the ADA supporting a cause of action 

16 against Defendant, the administrator of the GCIU Retirement Fund. Further, Plaintiff fails 

17 to provide any admissible evidence to establish that the conduct of Defendant violated any 

18 provision of the ADA. 

19 The Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of 

20 law on all claims. 

21 IV. CONCLUSION 

22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

23 (ECF No. 152). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment on behalf of Defendant 

24 Wenner and against Plaintiff as to all claims. 

25 

26 DATED: 

27 

28 

WILLIAM Q. HAY S 

United States District dge 

8 

!6cv2438-WQH-AGS 

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 208 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8