N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
E & J GALLO W INER

Y, a s a dm inistra

tor of the E. & J. Ga llo W ine ry Exe c utive R e t ire m e nt Pla

n, Plaintiff,
v. AUDREY R OGER S, De fe nda

nt-c ross-de fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , R ANDY R OGER S, a s Adm inistra tor of the Esta te of R obe rt G. R oge rs, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , v. M IC HELE M C KENZIE-R OGER S, De fe nda

nt-c ross-c la im ant - Appe lla nt. No. 13-55327 D.C . No. 8:09-c v-00513-DM GM LG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia 

# FIL E D
FEB 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a nd M AHAN, Distric t Judge
. *** E. & J. Ga llo W i ne ry file d this interple a d e r a c tion to de te rm i ne the de signa te d be ne fic ia

ry unde r the Ke y

Exe c utive Profit Sha

ring R e tire m e nt Pla

n (the “ ERP” ) be longing to R obe rt R oge rs, a

now-de c e a se d form e r Ga llo e m p loy e e . The distric t c ourt de nie d M ic he le R oge rs’ m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt,
c onc luding tha

t M ark R o ge rs wa s the prope r be ne fic ia ry of the ER

P be n e fits. M ic he le a ppe a l s. 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we
a ffirm
. 1. The pa

rtie s disputewhe the r the doc um e nts gove rning theER P are the 1988 le tte r c o nfirm ing R obe rt’ s ER P m e m be rship a nd a c c om pa ny ing be ne fic ia

ry de signa tion a lone , or whe t

he r the te rm s of the Ga llo Profit Sha ring R e tire m e nt Pla

n (the “ Ga llo Qua lifie d Pla

n” ), an ERISA qua lifie d pla n, we re inc orporate d into the

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Ja m e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da , sitting by de signa tion. 1 For e a se of re fe re nc e , we re fe r to e a c h m e m be r of the R o ge rs fam ily

by his or he r first na

m e . 2ERP whe n c e rta i n of its te rm s we re re fe re n c e d in the1988 le tte r. The distric t c ourt

c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t the 1988 le tte r, in whic h the te rm s of the ER P we re de sc ribe d, did not c le arly

and une quivoc a lly

inc orporate by

re fe re nc e the e ntire ty of the Ga llo Qua lifie d Pla n . Se e C ariaga v . Loc a l N

o. 1184 Laborers Int’l Union of N . Am. , 154 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th C ir. 1998) (quoting Slaught v

. Be nc omo Roofing C

o. , 30 C a l. R

p tr. 2d 618, 621 (C t. App. 1994)). First, the le tte r doe s not
c le arly e xpre ss the inte nt to inc o rporate a ll of the te rm s of the Ga llo Qua lifie d Pla n. M ic he le re lie s he avily

on the le tte r’ s third pa

ra gra p h, whic h sta

t e s tha t ve sting,
m e thods of pa

ym e nt a nd “ a ll othe r m atte rs” will bede te rm ine d unde r the Ga llo Qua lifie d Pla n. This re a ds “ a ll othe r m atte rs” too broa dly , a s the fourth pa ra gra ph of the 1988 le tte r spe c ific a lly a ddre sse s the issue of de signa ting a be ne fic ia ry , a nd inform e d R obe rt tha

t if he did not do so in the a c c om pa ny ing form , pa

ym e nts would be m a de to his e sta te . Se c ond, thete rm s re lating to bene fic ia ry de signa

tion in the 1988 le tte r are in dire c t c ontra dic tion to the ana logous provisions in the Ga llo Qua lifie d Pla

n, Se c tion 5.5.3. The Ga l lo Qua lifie d Pla n provide s tha

t be ne fits would be

pa id a ) to the surviving spouse , or b) to thede s igna te d be ne fic ia ry , but only if the re wa s no surviving spouse or if the surviving spouse ha d c onse nte d to thede signa te d be ne fic i ary , a

nd would pa ss to thee sta

te only if

3the re we re no surviving spouse or the surviving spouse

ha d c onse nte d to the de signa te d be ne fic ia

ry . 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc l ude d tha t R obe rt una

m b iguously de signa te d his form e r wife , Audre y R oge rs, a s his prim ary

be ne fic i ary

unde r the ERP, a nd his brother, M ark, a s his se c onda ry be n e fic ia ry . Se eMe tro. Life

Ins. C o.
v . Park e r , 436 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th C ir. 2006). Nothing in the ERP gove rning doc um e nts provide d tha

t R obe rt’ s m arria ge to M ic he le would void his prior be ne fic ia ry de s igna t ion. And, the

ER P is a non-qua lifie d, top ha

t pla n, e xe m pte d unde r ER ISA from

spousa l c o nse nt re quire m e nts. Se eGilliam v . N e v . Pow e r C

o . , 488 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ ER ISA e xe m pts [top ha

t] pla ns from the fiduc ia ry , funding, pa

rtic ipation a

nd ve sting re quire m e nts a pplic a ble to othe r
e m ploy e e be ne fit pla

ns.” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). B e c a use Audre y
wa ive d he r rights a s the prim a ry be ne fic ia ry of the ER

P in a “ W a ive r and Ge ne ra l R e le a se ” tha

t she signe d on Fe brua

ry 6, 2008, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly found tha

t M ark is e ntitle d to theER P be ne fits. AFFIRM E D.

4