Case Name: Gerald C. ARENDT; David D. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON-IDAHO-MONTANA CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT TRUST FUND; Zenith Administrators, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-26
Citations: 669 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 14-35457
Parties: Gerald C. ARENDT; David D. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON-IDAHO-MONTANA CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT TRUST FUND; Zenith Administrators, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Gerald C. ARENDT; David D. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON-IDAHO-MONTANA CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS RETIREMENT TRUST FUND; Zenith Administrators, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-35457
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2016 Seattle, Washington
Filed October 26, 2016
Jeffry Keith Finer, Senior Litigating Attorney, CENTER FOR JUSTICE, Spokane, WA, Gery Ronald Gasick, Attorney, Gary R. Gasick, Attorney at Law, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
William M. Symmes, Esquire, Attorney, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Gerard Sinzdak, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Kenneth E. Sealls, Esquire, Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, DC, for Inter-venor-Defendant-Appellee.
Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gerald Arendt and David Brown appeal the district court's dismissal of their suit alleging violations of the Takings Clause and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The defendants' decision to cut the Rule of 80 early retirement benefit did not involve government action, so the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002-03, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982). A private entity does not become a government, actor simply because it is subject to extensive regulation. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 52, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999). Although the Pension Protection Act of 2006 ("PPA") required the defendants to implement a rehabilitation plan, nothing- in the PPA compelled them to cut the Rule of 80 benefit; they retained discretion to decide how to implement the plan—subject to collective bargaining. See. id.; Blum, 457 U.S. at 1006-07, 102 S.Ct. 2777; 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(3). Accordingly, no government action was present in "the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains." Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004, 102 S.Ct. 2777; cf. George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1215-17 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because there was no government action, we do not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.