N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EUN SUG C HA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. 1199SEIU He a lth C a

re Em ploy e e s Pe nsion Fund,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-55435 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10151-SJO-AJW 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 S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Eun Sug C ha

a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in his ac tion unde r the Em

ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t of 1974 (“ ERISA” ) for disa bility pe nsion be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e 

# FIL ED DEC 23 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w for c le ar e rror a distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t, inc luding those unde rly ing the d istric t c o urt’ s c hoic e of the a pplic a b le sta nda rd of re vie win a

n ERISA c a se . Fe d. R . C iv. P. 52(a)(6); Pric hard v
. Me tro. Life Ins. C o. , 783 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th C ir. 2015). W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s c o nc lusions of la w. A r nold v
. Arrow Transp. C

o. of De l. , 926 F.2d 782, 785 (9th C ir. 1991). W he re an ERISAgove rne d pla n grants disc re t iona

ry a uthority to de te rm ine e ligibility

for be n e fits or to c o nstrue the te rm s of the pla n, we re v ie w for an a

buse of disc re t ion the a dm inistra

tor’ s inte rpre tation of thepla n, a nd de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of this sta

nda rd. Taple y v . Loc als 302 &

612 of the

Int’l Union of Ope rating Eng’rs-Emp’rs C onstr. Indus. Re t. Plan , 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm . The distric t prope rly

re vie we d the B o ard of Truste e s ’ and its Re tire m e nt C om m itte e ’ s (c olle c tive ly

“ Pla n Adm inistra

tor” ) de c ision for a

n a buse of disc re tion be c a

use the pla

n te rm s una

m biguously grante d disc re t iona

ry a uthority to the Pla n Adm inistra

tor. Se eAbatie

v . Alta He alth &LifeIns. C o. , 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C i r. 2006); G rosz-Salomon v. Paul Re v e reLifeIns. C o. , 237 F.3d 1154, 1159, 1161 (9th C ir. 2001) (pla n la ngua ge providing for “ full, fina l , c onc lusiveand binding power” of a dm inistra tor to c onstrue and inte rpre t the pla n c onfe rs disc re tion).
1 5 - 5 5 4 3 5 2The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t the Pla n Adm i nistra

tor’ s de nia l of be ne fits wa s ba se d

upon a re a sona

ble inte rpre tation of thepla n’ s e ligibility

c rite ria and tha t the Pla n Adm i nistra

tor did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C ha ’ s c la im . Se e Mc

Danie l v . C

he v ron C orp. , 203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th C ir. 2000). The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d C ha ’ s re que s t for a jury tria l be c a use the re is no c onstitutiona

l or sta tutory right to a jury tria l in a n ERISA a c tion. Se e Thomas v . Or. Fruit Prods. C o. , 228 F.3d 991, 995-97 (9th C i r. 2000) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c o nduc ting a be nc h tria l on thea dm inistra tive re c ord a

nd by de ny ing C ha ’ s re q

ue st for ora l argum e nt. Se e Ope ta v . N w . Airline s Pe nsion Plan for C

o ntrac t Emps. , 484 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C ir. 2007) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w for a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to ad

m it or e xc lude e vide nc e tha t wa s not be fore the pla

n a dm inistra

tor); Abatie , 458 F.3d a

t 970 (“ [I] n ge ne ra l, a

distric t c ourt m a

y re vie w only

the a dm inistra

tive re c ord whe n c onside ring whe the r the pla n a dm inistra

tor a buse d its disc re tion . . . .” ); Mahon v . C re dit Bure au of Plac e r C

ty ., Inc . , 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th C ir. 1999) (se tting forth sta n da rd of re vie wfor a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to he ar ora l a

rgum e nt a nd re quiring a

showing of pre

judic e whe re a

pa rty wa ive s ora l a

rgum e nt by

not re que sting it). AFFIRM E D.
1 5 - 5 5 4 3 5 3