N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KENNETH J. B AILEY, for him se lf a nd a s e xe c utor of the Esta

t e of Linda

Je an W e e ks, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. UNION B ANK RETIREM ENT PLAN; EM PLOYEE DEFER

RED C OM PENSATION AND B ENEFIT PLANS ADM INISTR

ATIVE C OM M ITTEE,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-55734 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-01754-R -SP
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 M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Ke nne th J. B a i le y

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt 

# FIL ED
N OV 21 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).in his a c tion unde r the Em ploy m e nt R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t of 1974 (“ ER ISA” ) for surviving dome stic pa rtne r be ne fits a

nd bre a c h of fiduc ia

ry duty
. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t. Tre main v . Be ll Indus., Inc

. , 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th C ir. 1999). W

he re an ER ISA-gove rne d pla

n gra nts disc re tiona

ry a uthority to de te rm i ne e ligibility

for be ne fits or to c onstrue the te rm s of the pla n, we re v ie w for
an a b use of disc re tion the a dm i nistra tor’ s inte rpre tation of thepla n, a nd de novo the d istric t c o urt’ s a

pplic at ion of this sta

nda rd. Taple y v . Loc als 302 &

612 of the Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs C onstr. Indus. Re t. Plan , 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 2013). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c ord. J ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc areSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C i r. 2008). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on B a i le y ’ s c la im for surviving dome stic pa

rtne r be ne fits unde r 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a )(1)(B ) be c a use B a ile y fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the pla n
a dm inistra

tor’ s de nia l of be ne fits wa s a n a buse of its disc re t ion. S

e e Mc D anie l v

. C he v ron C orp. , 203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th C ir. 2000) (unde r a buse of disc re t ion sta nda rd, pla n a dm inistra

t or’ s de nia l of be n e fits m

u st be uphe ld “ if it is ba se d upon
a re a sona ble inte rpre tat ion of thepla n’ s te rm s a

nd if it wa s m a de in good fa i th” ).

1 4
- 5 5 7 3 4 2Sum

m a ry judgm e nt on B a ile y ’ s bre a c h of fiduc ia ry duty c la im

wa s prope r be c a use B a ile y

fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the fa ilure to inform B a ile y

or his dom e stic pa

rtne r of the re gistra

tion re quire m e nt for surviving dome stic pa

rtne r be ne fits wa s a

bre a c h of de fe nda

nts’ fiduc ia

ry dutie s. Se e 2 9 U.S.C . § 1104(a ) (se tting forth sta nda rd of c are an d dutie s of pla n fiduc ia ry ); In re Orac leC

orp. Se cs. Litig. , 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th C ir. 2010) (de s c ribing non-m oving pa rty ’ s burde n to show spe c i fic fa c t s de m onstra ting
e xiste nc e of ge nuine dispute s for tria l). AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 5 5 7 3 4 3