1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

_____________ UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 2748

_____________ P E N S K E L O G IS T IC S , L L C ; P E N S K E T R U C K L E A S IN G C O ., L .P ., A pp el l ants

v. F R E IG H T D R IV E R S A N D H E L P E R S L O C A L 5 5 7 P E N S IO N F U N D ; T H E FR E I G H T D R I V E R S A N D H E L PE R S L O C A L U N I O N N O . 557 P E N S IO N F U N D B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S ; W IL L IA M A L E X A N D E R ; M AR K GAR E Y; P E T E R H AS S L E R; T HOMAS K. WOTR I NG

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 5: 08- cv- 02051) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. L aw r ence F. St engel

____________________________________

A r gued: M ar ch 9, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 21, 2010)

_________2

Counsel for Appe llants Counsel for Appe llees DAVID R. LEVI

N (ARGUE D) HELENE V. HE DIAN (ARGUED) MARK E. FURLANE COREY SMI TH B OTT B EN JAMI

N S. LUPI

N B RIANG. ESD ERS Drinke r, B iddle&Re ath Ab ato, Rub e ns te in &Ab ato 1500 K Street, N.W. 809 Gleneag les Court Suite 1100 Suite 320 Washington, DC 20005-0000 Baltimore, MD 21286-0000 OP I NI ON

_________ M C K E E , C i r cui tJudge A pp e l l a nt s Pe ns ke Logi s t i c s , LLC a nd Pe ns ke Tr uc k Le a s i ng Co. , L. P. ( col l ect i vel y“Pens ke”) appea l a s t ayent er ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t . For t he r eas ons t hat f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual and proced ural back groun d o f t his case, w e setfort h o nlyt ho se fact s crucial t o o ur anal y si s. F rei gh tD ri vers and H el pers Lo cal U nion N o. 55 7 P ensi on F un d (the “P l an”) i s a m u lti e m p lo y e r p e n sio n p lan a s d e f in e d b yth e M u lti e m p lo y e r P e n sio n P lan A m e n d m e n ts A ctof 1980 ( “M PPA A ”) , 29 U . S. C . § 1301( a) ( 3) . B yl et t erdat ed M ar ch 6, 2006 and t i t l ed “N ot i ce of

A s s es s m entof Par t i al W i t hdr aw al L i abi l i t y [, ] ” the Pl an’ s B oar d of T rus t ees not i fi ed Pens ke of a par t i al w i t hdr aw al l i abi l i t yunder29 U . S. C . § 1385 of a p p ro x im a tely$ 3 .9 m ill io n . T h e d e ter m in a tio n w a s b a se d o n a d e c lin e in c o n trib u tio n s to t he Pl an byL eas ew ayM ot or carT r ans por tC om panyfr om 2002 t o 2004. L eas ew ayw asI f Penske were under common control with L easeway after that transaction, it would be 1 lia blefo r L e a se wa

y ’s pa rtia l w ith drawal. 2 9 U .S. C. § § 1 30 1(b) (1 ), 13 92 ©; see Fly ing Tiger L ine v. Teamsters Pension Trus t Fund of Phila. , 830 F.2d 1241, 1244 ( 3d Cir. 1987). The Plan contends that the two ma

y have c ontinued to be under common control af

ter March 26, 2004, when Penskesold L easeway . That issue, which is re levant to Penske’s liability , will be deter mined in the first instance in a rbitration. 3 undercomm on contr ol w i t h Pens ke fr om atl eas t1996 unt i l i t s s al e on M ar ch 26, 2004. 1 Th e l e t t e rl a i d o u ta p a yme n ts c h e d u l e a n d d e ma n d e d p a yme n ta s r e q u i r e d b y2 9 U. S . C. §§ 1382 and 1399. Pens ke r eques t ed r evi ew of the Trus t ees ’ M ay6, 2006 det erm i nat i on under29 U . S. C . § 1399( b) ( 2) ( A ) byl et t erdat ed M ay30, 2006, ar gui ng t hati tw as not l i abl e fort he part i al w i t hdr aw al . A tt he s ame t i m e, Pens ke bega n m aki ng paym ent s t o t he Pl an as r equi r ed byt he M PPA A . 29 U . S. C . § 1399( c) ( 2) ( “W i thdr aw al l i abi l i t ys hal l be pay abl e . . . begi nni ng no l at ert han 60 day s aft ert he dat e of the demand not w i t hs t andi ng anyr eques tforr evi ew orappea l of det erm i nat i on of the amountof s uch l i abi l i t yorof the sc h e d u le” ). T h e T ru ste e s re sp o n d e d b ylette r d a ted O c to b e r 2 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e ya g re e d w ith Pens ke on one i s s ue, “thatt he w i t hdr aw al occurr ed as of the l as tdayof 2004, r athert han 2002. ” The T rus t ees concl uded, how ever , t hat“[i ] n vi ew of the fa ctt hatw e have noty et had the oppor tuni t yt o r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve i nfor m at i on aboutt he M ar ch 26, 2004 t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d b e c a u s e t h e CB Us d o i n d i c a t e t h a ta p a r t i a l wi t h d r a wa l o c c u r r e d , we r es pect ful l ydecl i ne att hi s t i m e t o w i t hdr aw t he Fund’ s as s es s m entof part i al w i t hdr aw al l i abi l i t y . ” Pens ke i ni t i at ed arbi t r at i on t o cont es ti t s l i abi l i t yt o t he Pl an pur s uantt o 29 U . S . C . § 1 40 1. T o d at e, arbi t rat i on con t i nu es. T h ere af ter, P en sk e su ed the F u n d an d T rustee s in d istri ct co u rtsee k ing d ec laratoryPe ns ke ’s a c tio n s ou ght o nly de c larator

y re lie f in th efo rm

of a findingthat de fend ants 2 ha d n ot m a dea

de te rm inatio n a s re qu ir e d b y ERI SA a nd inj un c tiv ere lie f re quiringde fend ants to make suc h a determination. In denying Penske ’s summary judgment motion, the district cour t conclude d as a matter of law that the Fund ma de a determination sufficient to trigg er ERI SA’s arbitration requirement. Pens k eLogistics LLC, 2009 WL1383298 at * 2. The district c ourt went s o f ar a s to say

that it wa s “un c le ar . . . why

[de fend ants ] ch os eno t to titlethe ir re sp on sein opposition t o summary

judgment, a ‘motion for re consideration’” of the district c ourts decision denying de fenda

nts’ motion to di smiss, i mplying that the court wa s decidingthe merits of Penske’s c laims. Id. at *1 n.2. Howe ver, thedistrict court did not order Penske’s c laims to be dismiss ed. 4 r el i ef, i nj unct i ve r el i ef, and damages . Pens ke al l eged thatt he Trus t ees had fa i l ed t o m ake a “ d e t e r mi n a t i o n ” t h a tP e n s k e p a r t i a l l ywi t h d r e w f r o m th e P l a n a s r e q u i r e d b y2 9 U. S . C. §§ 1382 and 1399( b) ( 2) beca us e the Trus t ees ’ O ct oberl et t eragr eed w i t h Pens ke on the w i t hdr aw al l i abi l i t ydat e. A ccor di ngl y , Pens ke ar gues , i tw as notobl i gat ed t o m ake p ay m en ts th at t h e P lan d em an d ed n o r t o arb itrate the issue o f w h ethe r i t w as li ab le fo r a p a rt ia l w ith d ra w a l. Pens ke moved fors um m aryj udgm enton D ece m ber1, 2008. O n M ay14, 2009, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d P e n s k e ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Pen s ke Log is t i c s LLC v. Fr ei ghtD r i ver

s & H el pers LocalU

ni on N o. 557 , N o. 08 C i v. 2051, 2009 W L 1383298, at* 1 ( E . D . Pa. M ay14, 2009) . T he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hatt he Trus t ees ’ M ar ch 6, 2006 l et t er , i n w hi ch i t“det er m i ned thatw i t hdr aw al l i abi l i t yw as ow ed and not i fi ed Pens ke of t he amount and paym ents chedul e[, ] ” w as s uffi ci entt o t r i ggert he M PPA A ’ s arbi t r at i on p ro v is io n . I

d. at*2. T he di s t r i ctcour ts t ay ed the ca s e pendi ng arbi t r at i on. I d. I tdi d not 2 m ent i on the Trus t ees ’ O ct ober2, 2006 l et t eri n i t s deci s i on. A rbi t r at i on pr ocee di ngs m andat ed by29 U . S. C . § 1401 ar e governed byt he rul es5

in th e F e d e ra l A rb itr a tio n A c t ( F A A ). See 2 9 U. S . C. § 1 4 0 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . Un d e rt h e F AA, we have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “an i nt er l ocut or yor der. . . gr ant i ng a s t ayof anyact i on u n d e rs e c t i o n 3 ” o f

t h e F A A . 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . S e c t i o n 3 o f t h e F A A a p p l i e s t o s t a ys ent er ed w her e “the i s s ue i nvol ved i n s uch s ui torpr ocee di ng i s r efe r abl e t o arbi t r at i on” an d the d istri ct co u rtso ref ers it . 9 U . S . C . § 3 . T h e stayen tered b ythe d istri ct co u rth ere i s nots uch a s t ay . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notr efe rt he i s s ue i n t hi s cas e – w hetherPens ke m a d e a “ d e te rm in a tio n ” u n d e r t h e re le v a n t p ro v is io n s o f th e M P P A A – to a rb itr a tio n . In s te a d , th e c o u rt d e c id e d th e m e ri ts o f P e n s k e ’s c la im . P ens ke Logis t i cs LLC , 2 0 0 9 WL 1 3 8 3 2 9 8 a t * * 1 - 2 . A c c o rd in g ly, ap p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n lie s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . See B r ow n v. P aci

f i c Li f e I ns . C o. , 462 F. 3d 384, 391 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( “A l t hough t he di s t r i ct cour tdi d notdi s m i s s t he ca s e, t her e w as not hi ng l eftfort he courtt o do butexec ut e the jud g m en t. . . . U n d er G r een Tr ee , t he or dercompel l i ng arbi t r at i on . . . ended the l i t i gat i on in f e d e ra l c o u rt o n th e m e ri ts a n d w a s a f in a l a p p e a la b le d e c is io n u n d e r 9 U .S .C . § 1 6 (a )(3 ).”) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); A m . Int’l Speci al t y Li nes I ns . C o. v. E l ec. D at a Sys . C or p. , 347 F. 3d 665, 668 ( 7t h C i r . 2003) ( “[I ] f a ll th e ju d g e is re tain in g ju risd ictio n f o r is to a llo w th e a rb itrato r’s a w a rd to b e c o n f irm e d w ith o u t n e e d f

o r th e f ili n g o f a se p a ra te l aw s ui t , t he or dert o arbi t r at e i s fi nal ( fi nal enough maybe a be t t erw ayt o puti t ) and th e re f o re im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le.” ) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l); cf . B ow ers v. Trans

por t aci on Ma r i t i ma Mex i c a n a , S . A. , 9 0 1 F .2 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 3 n .1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ 9 U .S .C . § 1 [ 6 ]( b ) . . ., does notdefe atappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on . . . des pi t e the fa ctt hatt he ef fec tof the di s t r i ct6

cour t ’ s or deri s t o s t ayl i t i gat i on of thes e cl ai m s . . . . Sect i on 1[6] s t at es t hat‘ an appe al m aynotbe t aken f

r om an i nter l ocu t ory o rd e r’ d ir e c tin g a rb itr a tio n . . . . 9 U .S .C . § 1[6] ( b) ( emphasi s added) . H er e, w e have a fi nal j udgm entr equi r i ng an arbi t r at i on m a n d a te d b ys ta tu te .” ). C o n c lu s io n s o f

la w a re s u b

je c t to p le n a ry re v ie w o n a p p e a l. P . P . ex r el . Mi chael P . v. W e st C h e ste r A re a S c h . D ist. , 585 F. 3d 727, 735 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . W e agr ee w i t h t he d istric t co u rt’s u lti m a te c o n c lu sio n th a t d e f e n d a n ts m a d e a d e ter m in a tio n su f f icie n t to tr ig g e r t h e a rb itr a tio n re q u ir e m e n t in 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 4 0 1 . See Fl yi ng TigerLi ne , 830 F. 2d a t 1 2 5 0 (“ [ O ]n c e a n e n tityis a n e m p lo y e r, itw ill . . . . b e a ss e ss e d w ith d ra w a l li a b ili ty unl es s t hatempl oy ers at i s fi es a s t atut or ypr ovi s i on r el i evi ng i tof l i abi l i t y . ”) . W e not e that P e n sk e is n o t w ith o u t re m e d y . P e n sk e m a yc o n tes t th e P lan ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f liab ili tyin a rb i t r a t i o n , 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 4 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d t h e a rb i t r a t o r ’ s d e c i s i o n i s s u b j e c tt o r e v i e w b y a c o u rt , i d. at§ 1401( b) ( 2) . I f Pens ke s ucce eds , i tm ays eek r ei m bur s ementof al l funds p a id to th e P la n w ith in te re s t. B d. of Tr. of Trucki ngE m ployees of

N . Jersey W

el f are Fund, I nc. - P ens i on Fund v. Ker o Leas i ng C or p. , 3 7 7 F . 3 d 2 8 8 , 3 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e d istric t co u rt.