Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01847/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01847-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR L. DORADO, )

) 2:06-cv-1847-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR )

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 Defendant Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern

California (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

claims for pension benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) (29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(a)(1)(B)) and for declaratory relief, arguing that Plaintiff is

not entitled to pension benefits. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to Defendant’s motion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for pension benefits with

Defendant’s Board of Trustees (the “Trustees”) on September 16, 2002. 

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 4
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 The standards for summary judgment are well known and need not 1

be repeated here. 

2

(Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) ¶ 10.) The Trustees

denied Plaintiff’s claim on October 11, 2002. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff

subsequently filed a complaint with the federal district court for

pension benefits on March 30, 2006. (Ex. A to Decl. of Susan J. Olson

(“Olson Decl.”).)

DISCUSSION1

I. Standard of Review

Defendant argues that the court should apply a deferential

standard of review to the Trustees’ denial of benefits decision since

the pension plan grants the Trustees discretion to construe the terms

of the Plan. (Mot. at 7:6-9.) Defendant declares that “the Trustees

retain sole and final discretion over claims decisions and that no

claim for benefits may be made absent Board determinations.” (SUF

¶ 1.) 

“In actions under [ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)] to challenge the

denial of benefits based on a plan administrator’s interpretation of a

plan, the district court must review for abuse of discretion the

benefits decisions of plan administrators and other fiduciaries to

whom the plan grants ‘discretionary authority to determine eligibility

for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.’” Canseco v.

Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 93 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir.

1996) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115

(1989)). “The trustees abuse their discretion if they render

decisions without any explanation, or construe provisions of the plan

in a way that clearly conflicts with the plain language of the plan.” 

Johnson v. Trs. of W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 879

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

F.2d 651, 654 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Hancock v. Montgomery Ward Long

Term Disability Trust, 787 F.2d 1302, 1307 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, the plan provides, in part, that: “[a]ny and every

claim . . . shall be resolved by the Board of Trustees under and

pursuant to the Plan and its decision shall be final and binding upon

all persons affected by the decision.” (Ex. A, Art. 9, sec. 2 to

Decl. of Edward J. Smith (“Smith Decl.”).) Accordingly, the court

determines whether Defendant’s decision to deny benefits was an abuse

of discretion.

II. Pension Benefits

Defendant declares that Plaintiff is not vested under the

pension plan and therefore is not entitled to benefits. (SUF ¶ 2,

Mot. at 9:1-2.) To achieve vested status under the pension plan, and

thus be entitled to benefits, Plaintiff must either have: (i) achieved

ten years of credited service without a permanent break in service, or

(ii) attained age 50 with 15 benefit units between August 1, 1964 and

February 1, 1972. (SUF ¶ 4.) Prior to achieving vested status, any

accrued benefit units (or years of credited service) are permanently

lost if the claimant incurs a permanent break from service. (Ex. B at

10 to Smith Decl.) 

The record reveals that as of July 1963, Plaintiff had not

achieved ten years of credited service and had only accrued 6.5

benefit units. (Ex. C to Smith Decl.; Smith Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, 14-15.) 

Plaintiff then incurred a permanent break from service from August

1963 through July 1964 and from August 1964 through July 1965, thus

cancelling the 6.5 benefit units earned by Plaintiff prior to August

1963. (SUF ¶¶ 5-7.) Further, even though Plaintiff temporarily

resumed work after his permanent break from service, Plaintiff did not

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

achieve ten years of credited service without a permanent break in

service under prong (i) and did not attain the age of 50 with 15

benefit units between August 1, 1964 and February 1, 1972, as required

under prong (ii). (Id. ¶ 8.) Accordingly, the record shows that

Defendant did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff pension

benefits. 

III. Attorney’s Fees

 Defendant also requests attorney’s fees under ERISA

§ 502(g)(1) (29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1)). (Mot. at 14:1-2.) However,

Defendant has not submitted an affidavit as required by Eastern

District of California Local Rule 54-293(b)(3) which prescribes, in

pertinent part, that “[a]ll motions for awards of attorneys’ fees

pursuant to statute shall, at a minimum, include an affidavit showing

. . . the amount of attorneys’ fees sought.” L.R. 54-293(b)(3). 

Therefore, Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment in favor of Defendant. 

Dated: July 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:06-cv-01847-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 4