N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARK LEGASSIE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R AYTHEON C OM PANY EM PLOYEE B ENEFITS ADM INISTR ATION C OM M ITTEE, Adm inistra tor of the R aythe on C om

pa ny Pe nsion Pla

n for Sa la rie d Em ploy e e s, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-56108 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01850-AB C JEM 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 Audre y B . C ollins, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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. ** The a

ppe l la nt ra i se d issue s, in brie fing a nd ora l a rgum e n t, tha

t de m ande d a

n e spe c ia lly

se arc hing e xam ination of there c ord. The de la y in re nde ring this de c ision wa s oc c a sione d by the nature of the re c o rd an d the ne c e ssity of a se a rc h i ng re vie w of it in light of the se rious que stions ra ise d.B e fore : KOZINSKI, C hie f Judge , KLEINFELD a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s . M ark Le ga ssie a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry

of judgm e nt a ga inst him on his c la im s tha

t R aythe on viola

te d va rious ER ISA notic e and disc losure provisions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Le ga ssie ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t 29 U.S.C . § 1059(a )(1) should be re a d a s re fe rring to te rm ination or a

bre a k in partic ipation or c re dite d se rvic e is wa ive d be c a

u se he did not ra ise it be low. In re E.R . Fe ge rt, Inc . , 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ The rule in this c irc uit is tha t a ppe lla te c ourts will not c onside r argum e nts tha t are n ot ‘ prope rly

ra i se [d] ’ in the tria l c ourts.” ). The distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l finding tha t the R aythe on C om

pa ny Em ploy e e B e ne fits C om

m i tte e provide d Le ga ssie with a sum m ary pla n de sc ription in 2009 wa s not c le arly

e rrone ous. Furthe rm ore , while 29 U.S.C . § 1024(b)(1) re q uire s the pla n a dm inistra

t or to distribute

a sum m ary pla n de sc ription e ve ry

te n y e a rs, or e ve ry five y e ars if the re is a

n am e ndm e nt to thepla

n, Le ga ssie did not offe r a ny e vide nc e in the distric t c ourt to support his a rgum e nt tha

t R aythe on wa s re q

uire d to provide him

with a sum

m ary pla n de sc ription prior to the

one provide d in 2009. 2Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t Le ga s sie ha d not shown tha t R aythe o n viola

te d this provision. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t R ayt he on viola

te d 29 U.S.C . § 1024(b)(1) by fa iling to provide the re quire d sum

m ary pla n de sc riptions, there is no a lle gation, le t a l one e vide nc e of, “ any

inte ntiona l m isle a ding or tric k e ry , or of a ny a c tive c onc e a lm e nt,” so the distric t c ourt c orre c t l y c o nc lude d tha

t Le ga ssie ’ s re que ste d e quita ble re lie f is not a ppropria te . Se e Pe ra lta

v. Hispa nic B usine ss, Inc . , 419 F.3d 1064, 1076 (9th C ir. 2005). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha t R aythe on provide d e le c tronic pla

n funding notic e s, a s provide d for by 29 C .F.R . § 2520.104b-1. Furthe rm ore , the distric t c o urt did not a b use its disc re tion in re fusing to c o nside r Le ga ssie ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the e le c tronic distribution wa s not re a s ona bly c a lc ulate d to e n sure a c tua l re c e ipt of thenotic e s be c a use Le ga ssie did not ra ise this a rgum e nt until his re sponse to R aythe on’ s R ule 60(b) m o tion. Se e Unite d Nat’ l Ins. C o. v. Spe c trum W orldwide , Inc ., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th C ir. 2009).

3In any e ve nt, the re c o rd shows tha t R ayt he on e m a ile d its e m

ploy e e s, inc l uding Le ga ssie , instruc tions on how to a c c e ss the funding notic e s re quire d by 29 U.S.C . § 1021(f)(1). Le ga ssie ’ s de c l ara t ion a nd atta c he d e xhibits re ve a l tha t he wa s looking for the

funding notic e on the wrong se c t ion of the be n e fits we bsite . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Le ga ssie re c e ive d the pe nsion be ne fit sta te m e nts re quire d unde r 29 U.S.C . § 1025(a )(1)(B )(i) in the y e ars 2006, 2008, and 2009 is not c le arly e rrone ous. Le ga ssie ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the se sta te m e nts we re not in c om

plia nc e with there q

u ire m e nts of thesta

t ute be c a u se of the i r ina c c ura c ie s is wa ive d be c a

use he did not ra ise it in his c om pla i nt, a t tria l or in his opening brie f on a ppe a l . De lga do-He rnande z v. Holde r, 697 F.3d 1125, 1126 n.1 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Issue s not ra ise d in a n a ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f are ty

pic a l ly de e m e d wa ive d.” ) (quoting Singh v. Ashc roft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th C ir. 2004)). AFFIRM E D .

4