Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01189/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01189-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NORBERT PIET, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant and ) 

Cross-Appellee, ) 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Nos. 89-1188 & 89-1189 

(D.C. No. 88-B-822) 

SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 9 

Defendant-Appellee and 

Cross-Appellant, 

TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS ) 

LOCAL NO. 9 PENSION TRUST; ) 

TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS ) 

LOCAL NO. 73 PENSION TRUST; ) 

TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS) 

NATIONAL PENSION FUND, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges 

( D. Colo.) 

This appeal arises from an unsuccessful action to recover 

benefits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 (ERISA). Contending the trial court erred in adopting the 

magistrate's findings and recommendations and also in granting 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 1 
defendants' motions to stay discovery, Norbert L. Piet appeals the 

judgment of the district court. We affirm. 

In 1951, Piet joined the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 73 

in Chicago, Illinois. 1 In mid-1969 he was transferred to Colorado 

by his Illinois employer. Piet continued his membership in Local 

73 until July 1970 when he transferred to Local 9 in Denver, 

Colorado. 

well. 

In December of 1985, Piet withdrew from Local 9 as 

At age 55, while employed as a supervisor at full salary in 

the construction industry, Piet requested payment of early 

retirement benefits from the pension funds. Both Local 9 and 

Local 73 had established pension plans for the benefit of their 

members. Both locals had also joined the National Pension Fund: 

Local 9 in 1972 and Local 73 in 1983. The National Pension Fund 

is a jointly administered employee pension benefit plan within the 

meaning of § 3(2) of ERISA, 29 u.s.c. § 1002(2), and§ 302(c) of 

the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 u.s.c. § 186(c). The fund 

was established in 1966 pursuant to a trust agreement between the 

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and various 

industry employers that have collective bargaining agreements with 

the union. Piet was notified that under the trust agreement, he 

had no vested right to any pension benefit from the Local 73 plan 

due to his age. He was denied benefits from the Local 9 and 

1 In setting forth the facts, 

Magistrate's Recommendation. 

-2-

we borrow heavily from the 

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 2 
National Pension Fund on the ground that his employment in 

Colorado disqualified him from receiving such benefits. 

After unsuccessfully attempting to secure early retirement 

pension benefits from the two union pension funds, Piet filed a 

civil action alleging various violations of ERISA. In his 

complaint, Piet named as defendants the Sheet Metal Workers Local 

No. 9 of Denver, Colorado (Local 9), the Trustees of Sheet Metal 

Workers Local No. 9 Pension Trust of Denver, Colorado (Trustees 

9), the Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 73 Pension Trust 

of Chicago, Illinois (Trustees 73), and the Trustees of the Sheet 

Metal Workers National Pension Fund of Alexandria, Virginia 

(National Trustees). He also sought punitive damages from Local 

9. 

The district court referred the matter to the magistrate for 

recommendation on motions that had been filed in the case. On 

February 16, 1989, the magistrate heard oral argument on the 

defendants' motions for summary judgment, judgment on the 

pleadings, and motion to dismiss. After a lengthy and detailed 

discussion, the magistrate concluded in part: (1) the motion for 

summary judgment filed by National Trustees should be granted; (2) 

the motion for summary judgment filed by Trustees 9 should be 

granted; (3) the motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion 

for summary judgment filed by Trustees 73 should be granted; (4) 

the motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an award of 

attorneys fees filed by Local 9 should be granted in part and 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 3 
denied in part. The district court adopted the recommendations 

and ordered the action dismissed on May 18, 1989. Judgment was 

entered the next day in accordance with the order. 

On appeal, Piet contends: (1) "The Trial Court erred in 

adopting the Magistrate's Recommendation to grant Defendants' 

Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgment Motions when there were 

disputed issues of fact related to core issues of Plaintiff's 

case;" (2) "The Trial Court erred in granting Defendants' motions 

to stay discovery;" (3) "The Trial Court erred in adopting the 

Magistrate's Finding and Recommendation that Plaintiff was not 

harmed by Local 9 Trustee's failure to provide material necessary 

to perfect the claim or appropriate information necessary to 

submit the claim for review;" (4) "The Local 9 Pension Plan 

Trustees who are also Managers and Officers in Local 9 are subject 

to 'De Novo' review predicated on allegations of conflict of 

interest;" (5) "Pension Fund Trustees have the obligation to 

protect the interest of the beneficiary and not at their 

discretion take an adversary position to the beneficiary:" and (6) 

"Local 73's failure to notify the Plaintiff of the change in 

minimum age requirement and subsequent letters to him were a 

deliberate attempt to deny Plaintiff 39000 hours of pension 

credit." In its cross-appeal, Local 9 contends the district court 

erred in refusing to award attorney's fees against Piet and Piet's 

counsel. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 4 
We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment under 

the same standard employed by the trial court under Fed. Rule of 

Civil Proc. 56(c). Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 

F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). We have reviewed the arguments of 

counsel, the record in this case and the law as it applies. As to 

Piet's issues 1 (disputed issue of fact) and 3 (failure to produce 

information), we adopt the analysis of the magistrate in the 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate dated April 24, 1989, 

and hold the district court did not err in ruling in accordance 

with the Recommendation. 

We review de novo the trial court's grant of defendants' 

motions to stay discovery in this case due to the nature of the 

action. In this case, the trial court sat only to review the 

administrative record. The Trustees Local 9 argue that discovery 

was unwarranted under 502(a)(l)(B) of ERISA, and we agree. Smith 

v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 403 F. Supp. 1000, 1020 (D. Del. 1975) 

(denying discovery in a suit challenging federal agency action 

where scope of judicial review is limited to administrative 

record). Even if discovery were proper in the instant action, the 

record indicates that Piet did not seek discovery after filing his 

complaint. Further, he failed to proceed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(f) after the motions for summary judgment were filed. Thus, 

regarding Piet's issue No. 2, we hold the district court did not 

err. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 5 
Piet states his fourth issue as follows: "The Local 9 

Pension Plan Trustees who are also Managers and Officers in Local 

9 are subject to 'De Novo' review predicated on allegations of 

conflict of interest." To paraphrase, Piet argues the 

interpretation of the plan is subject to de novo review by the 

district and the circuit courts. "Plaintiff would argue that 

there was an abuse of discretion due to the conflict of interest, 

and the lack of full and fair review as already determined by the 

Court would entitle Plaintiff to a 'De Novo' hearing." We have 

reviewed the record and the law and find Piet's argument in this 

regard meritless. 

The district court properly reviewed the denial of benefits 

under the law as stated in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 

489 U.S. 101(1989). If the documents governing a pension plan 

grant the trustees discretionary authority in determining 

eligibility for benefits, then the trustee's decision should be 

given deference by the courts and should not be disturbed if 

reasonable. Id. at 954. Further, in Naugle v. O'Connell, 833 

F.2d 1391, 1393-94 (10th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted), we 

stated: "Judicial review of a trustee's decision to deny benefits 

is limited to a determination of whether the decision is arbitrary 

or capricious. A decision is neither arbitrary nor capricious if 

it is based on substantial evidence and is not the result of a 

mistake of law." Id. (footnote omitted). Under this standard, 

the district court did not err in its review of the decision 

denying benefits to Piet. Further, although Piet argues that the 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 6 
Trustees operated under a conflict of interest, the record bears 

no facts in support of his position. The trial court correctly 

rejected this argument . . 

Finally, Piet lodges his fifth and sixth arguments. After 

reviewing the record, we conclude that Piet failed to raise these 

issues below. Therefore, we will not consider them on appeal. 

Cavic v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1421, 1425 (10th 

Cir. 1987). 

In a cross-appeal, Local 9 contends the district court erred 

in refusing to award attorney's fees against Piet and Piet's 

counsel. We review the district court's denial of fees for abuse 

of discretion, Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 673 (10th Cir. 

1988), and hold the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing 

to award fees in this case. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-1189 Document: 010110038716 Date Filed: 07/19/1990 Page: 7