N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TR USTEES OF THE U.A. LOC AL 38 DEFINED B ENEFIT PENSION PLAN; LAW RENC E M AZZOLA, Jr.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. TR USTEES OF THE PLUM B ER S AND PIPE FITTER S NATIONAL PENSION FUND; W ILLIAM P. HITE,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16543 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-05528-YGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, GOULD, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Truste e s of the U.A. Loc a l 38 De fine d B e ne fit Pe nsion Pla n (“ Loc a l 38” )
a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of its de c la ra t ory judgm e nt a c tion a ga inst the



# FIL ED
JAN 30 2017 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.Truste e s of the Plum be rs a nd Pipe Fitte rs Nationa l Pe nsion Fund (“ Nat iona l” ). W e dism iss for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. In its c o m pla i nt, Loc a l 38 a sse rte d tha t the distric t c ourt ha d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r Loc a l 38’ s c la im s pursua nt to 29 U.S.C . § 1132(e )(1), Em ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t of 1974 (ER

ISA) § 502(e )(1), and 28 U.S.C
. § 1331, be c a

use ER ISA c om

p le te ly pre e m pts Na tiona l’ s unde rly ing sta

te -law bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im
. If a sta te -la w c la im is c o m ple te ly pre e m pte d by ER ISA § 502(a ), the n fe de ra l c ourts ha ve fe de ra l que s tion subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. Se e Fosse n v . Blue C

ross &Blue Shie ld of Mont. , 660 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th C i r. 2011) (“ C onflic t pre e m

ption unde r ER ISA § 502(a ) . . . c o nfe rs fe d e ra l subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion for c la im s tha t nom ina lly

arise unde r stat e la

w. . . . [S] tate -la

w c la im s
m ay be re m ove d to fe de ra l c ourt if the‘ c om ple t e pre e m

p tion’ doc trine a

pplie s.” (c ita tions omitte d )); Marin G e n. Hosp. v . Mode sto &Empire

Trac tion C

o. , 581 F.3d 941, 945 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ C om ple te pre e m

ption unde r [ER ISA] § 502(a ) is

‘ re a lly a jurisdic tiona l rathe r tha

n a pre e m ption doc trine , [a s it] c onfe rs e x c lusive fe de ra l jurisdic tion in c e rta in insta nc e s whe re C ongre ss inte nde d the sc ope of a fe de ra l la w to be so broa d a s to e ntire ly re pla c e any

sta t e -lawc la im .’ ” (quoting Franc isc an Sk

e mp He althc are

, Inc . v . C e nt. State s J oint Bd. He alth &W

e lfare Trust Fund

, 538 F.3d 594, 596 (7th C ir. 2008)).
2“ [A] sta te -la w c a use of a c tion is c om

ple t e ly pre e m pte d if (1) a

n individual,
at som e point, c ould ha

ve brought thec la im

unde r ER ISA § 502(a )[] , a nd (2) . . . the re is no other inde pe nde n t le ga l duty tha t is im p lic ate d by

a de fe nda nt’ s
a c tions.” Fosse n , 660 F.3d a t 1107–08 (quoting Marin Ge n . Hosp. , 581 F.3d a t 946 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). B oth pa rts of this two-prong te st m ust be
m e t for a sta te -la w c la im to be c om

ple te ly pre e m pte d
. Se e id. Nationa l’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im is not c om

p le t e ly pre e m pte d, a n d the distric t c o urt did not ha

ve subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. Ne ithe r prong of the pre e m ption te st is sa

tisfie d . The first prong is not sa tisfie d be c a

u se Nationa l c ould not ha ve brought a

n a c tion unde r ER ISA § 502(a ). Nationa l c ould not bring its bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im unde r ER ISA § 502(a )(2) be c a use the Truste e s of Loc a l 38 do not e xe rc ise any

c ontrol of Na

tiona l ’ s pla

n a s se ts, a n d a re the re fore not fiduc ia rie s of Na tiona l’ s pla

n. Se e 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a)(2), ER ISA § 502(a )(2); 29 U.S.C . § 1002(21)(A)(i); c f. Bos v . Bd. of Trs. , 795 F.3d 1006, 1011–12 (9th C ir. 2015). Na

tiona l a lso c o u ld not ha

ve brought its ac tion unde r ER ISA § 502(a )(3) be c a use it is se e king da

m a ge s for bre a c h of c ontra c t, not e quita ble re lie f, and be c a use Nationa l is not se e king to a ddre ss a viola tion of ER

ISA or an ERISA pla

n. 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a)(3), ERISA § 502(a )(3).

3The se c ond prong a lso is not sa tisfie d. In e va luat ing the se c ond prong, the que stion “ is whe the r the c om pla int re lie s on a

le ga l duty

tha t a rise s inde pe nde ntly of ER ISA.” Marin Ge n. Hosp. , 581 F.3d a t 950. “ If the re is som e othe r inde pe nde nt le ga l duty

be y ond tha

t im pose d by an ERISA pla

n, a c la im ba se d on that duty is not c om

ple t e ly pre e m pte d . . . .” Id. at

949. He re , the unde rly ing bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im is not pre e m p te d be c a use it doe s not m e e t e ithe r the first or the se c ond prong of the pre e m ption te st. Loc a l 38’ s obliga

tion to re m it m one y

to Na tiona l is ba se d on the Unite d Assoc iat ion Pe nsion Fund Re c iproc a l Agre e m e nt, a nd a rise s from a

le ga l duty

im pose d by tha t
c ontra c t, not by

an unde rly ing ER

ISA pla n. B e c a use Loc a l 38 ha d

an inde pe nde nt le ga l duty outside of ER ISA, Nationa l’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im s a

re not
c om ple t e ly pre e m p te d , and the re is no fe de ra l que stion subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. 1 DISM I SSE D.

1 Nationa l’ s M otion To Dism i ss Appe a l As M oot is de nie d for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. 4