FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 6, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 11609 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -023 37 -C V -J E C -1 M .D . G E R A L D E . M O O D Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M .D . P . M I C H A E L S K A L I Y , Indi vi du al l y and as T rust ee of the P . M i chae l S kal i y M . D . , P . C . 40 1(k) P r of i tS ha r i ng P l a n a nd T rus ta nd the P . M i chae l S kal i y M . D . M on eyP urchas e P e n s io n P la n a n d T ru s t, P . M I C H A E L S K A L I Y , M .D ., P .C ., Indi vi du al l y and as P l an A dm i ni stra t or o f th e P . M ic h a e l S k a liy , M .D ., P .C . 4 0 1 ( k ) P r o f

it S h a r in g P la n a n d T ru s t a n d th e P . M ic h a e l S k a liy M .D ., P .C . M o n e y P u r c h a s e P e n s io n P la n a n d T ru s t, P . M IC H A E L S K A L IY , M . D . , P . C . 40 1 (K ) P R O F I T S H A R I N G P L A N A N D T R U S T , P . MI C HA E L S KA L I Y, M. D. , P . C . AN D MONE Y P UR C HA S E P E NS I ON P L AN AN D T R U S T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .We reviewa district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgment de novo, and the district 1 court’s f indings of f

act f or cle ar error . Ajaka v. B rooksamerica Mortg . Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1343 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 6, 2008) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G er al d E . M oo dy, M . D . , appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f h i s fo rm er em p l o yer, P . M i ch ael S k al i y, M . D . , P . C . (“ S k al i y, P. C. ” ) , o n h i s c l a i ms th a tSk a l i y , P. C. v i o l a t e d th e Emp l o y e e Re t i r e me n tI n c o me S e c ur i ty A c tof

1974 ( “ E R I S A ” ) , 29 U . S . C . § 1001 e ts e q. S pe c i f i c a l l y , M oody a s s e rt e d c l a i ms f

o r : 1 ) ERI SA b e n e f

i t s a n d d a ma g e s p u r s u a n tt o 2 9 U . S. C. § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) ; 2 ) b r e a c h o f ERI SA - i mp o s e d f

i du c i a ry d u t i e s u n d e r2 9 U . S. C. § 1 13 2(a) (1)( A ); and 3 ) s t atut ory penal t i es for f ai l ure t o p rovi de E R IS A -gov erned i nform at i on pu rs uantt o 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 13 2(c) (1). T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed su m m ary j u d g m en tt o S k al i y, P . C . o n each o f M o o d y’ s cl ai m s. 1 T he m a t e r i a l f

a c t s i n thi s appe a l a r e undi s put e d. M oody w a s e m pl oy e d by S ka l i y , P . C . , as m a l l ane s the s i apr a c t i c e , f r om S e pt e m be r1999 thr ough the e nd of3

M a y 2 0 0 3 w h e n h is e m p lo y m e n t w a s te rm in a te d d u e to alo s t c o n tr a c t w ith No rth s i d e Ho s p i t a l . Du r i n g Mo o d y ’ s e m p l o y m e n t , S k a l i y , P . C . a d m i n i s t e r e d two E R IS A -c ov er ed pensi on pl ans f or the benefi tof i t s e m pl oyee s: 1) the P . M i chae l S k al i y, M . D . M o n ey P u rch ase P en si o n P l an & T ru st ; an d 2 ) th e P . M i ch ael S k al i y, P .C . 4 0 1 ( K ) P r o f

it S h a r in g P la n a n d T ru s t. M o o d y b e c a m e e lig ib le to p a rtic ip a te in S k a liy , P .C .’s p e n s io n p la n s in J a nua ry 1, 2001. D ur i ng 2001, S ka l i y , P . C . c ontr i but e d $35, 000 t o both pl a ns on M oody ’ s be ha l f

; the s e c ontr i but i ons w e r e m a de i n a ddi t i on t o M oody ’ s s a l a ry of $1 50 , 00 0 p erye ar . In N ov em ber 200 1, M oo dy ent er ed i nt o an am ended em pl oym entagre em entw i th S kal i y, P . C . w hi ch prov i ded thatM oo dy’ s s al ary w ou l d b e 35% of the “ neti ncom e” of the pract i ce . U nd erthi s a m ended p ay a g r e e m e n t, S k a liy , P .C .’s c o n tr ib u tio n s to th e p e n s io n p la n ’s o n M o o d y ’s b e h a lf w o u l d d ecrease h i s t ak e-h o m e p ay. E f f e c tiv e A p r il 2 0 0 2 , th e S k a liy , P .C . M o n e y P u r c h a s e P la n w a s m e r g e d in to th e P r o f it S h a r in g P la n to p r o v id e as in g le p e n s io n p la n f o rS k a liy , P .C . e m p lo y e e s . I n m i d- 2002, how e ve r , M oody r e que s t e d i n w r i t i ng t o be e xc l ude d a s apa rt i c i pa nt fr om the pensi on pl an. H e e xecut ed a l ett eri n Jul y 200 2 t o S kal i y, P . C . w hi ch r e a d: Th i s l e tt e ri s my o f f i c i a l r e q u e s tt o o p to u to f P. M i c h a e l Sk a l i y M . D . , P. C. M one y P ur c ha s e P e ns i on P l a n a nd M i c ha e l S ka l i y M . D . , P . C . P r of i tS ha r i ngIn 2 00 3, theterm s o f t hemerg e d p lan w ereamende d topre c ludepa rtic ipa ntsor e ligibl e 2 employees f

rom opting out of pla

n participation.

4 P l an. I und er st and thatthi s i s i rr evocabl e and I w i l l no tbe el i gi bl e t o ree nt er a ny r e t i r e m e ntpl a n s uc h a s M one y P ur c ha s e P e ns i on P l a n orP r of i tS ha r i ng P l a n f r om J a nua ry 1, 2002. I unde r s t a nd tha tI w i l l be w i thdr a w n f r om the pl ans a s of J anuary1, 20 02 , and am no tel i gi bl e f or any r et i re m enttype pl an a f t e rD e c e m be r31, 2001. Sk a l i y , P. C. g r a n t e d M o o d y ’ s w r i tt e n r e q u e s td e s p i t e th e f a c tth a tth e p l a n t e rms s ta te d th a t a n e m p lo y e e s h o u ld c o m m u n ic a te h is o rh e re le c tio n to o p t- o u t “w ith in a r ea sonabl e per i od of t i m e bef ore the begi nn i ng of the fi rs tP l an Y ear. ” N one the l e s s , S ka l i y , P . C . i m m e di a t e l y w i thdr e w M oody f r om the pe ns i on pl a n, a n d d is b u r s e d to h im a ll o f th e p e n s io n p la n f

u n d s th a t h a d b e e n s e t a s id e o n h is behal f duri ng 20 02 ($9, 31 5. 38 i ncl ud i ng i nt er es t ). 2 A tthe ce nt erof M oo dy’ s s ui ti s hi s c on t ent i on thatS kal i y, P . C . vi ol at ed E R I S A by a l l ow i ng hi m t o opt - outof the pe ns i on pl a n, c ontr a ry t o the t e rm s of the pl a n w hi c h r e qui r e d hi m t o do s o “ w i thi n ar e a s onabl e pe r i od of t i m e be f or e the begi nn i ng of the fi rs tP l an Y ear. ” H e a l so ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n a f

f i rm i ng f or f e i tur e of hi s “ ve s t e d, e m pl oy e e - f unde d c ontr i but i ons ” t o the S kal i y, P . C . pl ans; thatM oo dy’ s w ai ver c on st i tut ed a prohi bi t ed “ cut -bac k” un der E R I S A ; th a t th e r e c e n t S u p r e m e C o u rt d e c is io n in L a R u e v . D e W o lf f , B o b e r g , & A s s o c s . I n c ., 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 0 2 0 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , r e n d e r e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is p o s itio n o f h is br e a c h of

f i duc i a ry duty c l a i m e rr one ous ; tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n m a ki ng aMo od y alsoargue s th at th edis tric t c ou rt erre d in failingto a

naly ze e ac h p lan s epa

rate ly 3 and ignoringthe express prohibition on opting-out in the amended 2003 ter ms. The district court did not err in finding , however, that “plaintiff’s re quest . . . eff ectively waived his c laim to Pl an benef its during 2002–2003”beca use the 2003 prohibition only applied to any

“Participa

nt” or “Elig ible Employee.”Given his opt-out in July 2002, he wa s neither of

these at the time that the amende d term s to ok

e ff e c t. 5 fa ctual det erm i nat i on thatno part i al t erm i nat i on of the pl an had o cc urre d; and that the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o e xpa nd the s c ope of doc um e nt s r e qui r e d t o be prod uced un der 29 U . S . C . § 1 02 4 (b)(4). 3 A f te rc a r e f u l r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a rtie s ’ b r ie f s , w e f in d n o e rr o rin the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s thor ough a nd w e l l - r e a s one d or de ra nd opi ni on gr a nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o S kal i y, P . C . W e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng that tho ug h “ pl ai nt i ff’ s r equestw as no tsubm i tt ed w i thi n the t i m e f ra m e c on t em pl at ed b y th e [ p la n ] la n g u a g e , i.e . b e f o r e th e b e g in n in g o f

th e f ir s t P la n Y e a r [ ,] . . . th e r e is no re stri ct i on agai nsta pl an adm i ni stra t or w ai vi ng such a deadl i ne. ” D . C t . O rder a t11. M oody ’ s a r gum e nt s t o the c ontr a ry a r e unpe r s ua s i ve , a nd w e f i nd the b a la n c e o f

h is a r g u m e n ts to b e m e r itle s s . W e a ls o r e je c t, a s d id th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, M oody ’ s i nvi t a t i on t o e xpa nd the s c ope of § 1024 ( b) ( 4) ’ s pr oduc t i on r e q u ir e m e n ts . A cco rd i n g l y, th e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED .