Court Opinion

ID: 9480241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:41:59.759028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:33.579662
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-Appellees Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and Charles J. Huttinger (Huttinger) petition this court for rehearing in our opinion, Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association International AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.1990). In Landry, we reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to ALPA and Huttinger.1 Although we remanded the case to the District Court for a determination of several issues, we also entered findings against ALPA and Huttinger as to the following: (i) “we instruct the court on remand to accept as a matter of law that the [retirement plan for the plaintiffs-pilots] was in effect on February 1, 1982’’ Landry, at 417; and (ii) “we find as a matter of law that Huttinger had a fiduciary duty to disclose information about the Plan when asked.” 2 Landry, at 420.
In their petition for rehearing, ALPA and Huttinger urge that on a motion for summary judgment, the Court’s role “is not ... to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Mozeke v. International Paper Co., 856 F.2d 722 (5th Cir.1988). This court went too fast in making findings against ALPA and Huttinger. Because they have never been placed on notice of any need or obligation to respond to any of plaintiffs’ assertions (i.e., that a failure to respond *438could subject them to adverse factual findings or to adverse legal determinations predicated on such factual determinations), as, for example, they would have been had plaintiffs cross-moved for relief, the effect of entry of factual findings against ALPA and Huttinger under these circumstances deprived them of an opportunity to dispute the facts material to the plaintiffs’ claims. Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 683, 69 S.Ct. 754, 755, 93 L.Ed. 971 (1949); E.C. Ernst, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 537 F.2d 105, 109 (5th Cir.1976).
Accordingly, we modify our earlier opinion to withdraw the two findings, supra. Instead, based on the evidence discussed in Landry, we now hold that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether (i) the retirement plan was in effect on February 1, 1982, and (ii) Huttinger had a fiduciary duty to disclose information about the plan when asked. On remand, after the parties have been given a full opportunity to discover and present the evidence, these issues are for determination by the trier of fact in accordance with our earlier opinion, Landry v. ALPA, 901 F.2d 404, as modified herein.
ALPA and Huttinger have also questioned our use of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) in the portion of our opinion which holds that a fact issue exists as to whether there was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664 (a RICO predicate act). Section 501(a) imposes special fiduciary duties upon officers of labor organizations. As we stated in our opinion, see Landry at 431, text accompanying note 98, a breach of special fiduciary duties may be a violation of § 664. In order to clarify this holding, we insert the following text at the end of the existing footnote 102, Landry at 432:
We find that a fact issue exists as to whether Huttinger breached any of the fiduciary duties imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). As we state, supra, “intentional breaches of special fiduciary duties imposed by other statutes ...” then 18 U.S.C. § 664 may give rise to liability under 18 U.S.C. § 664.
With respect to ALPA and Huttinger’s criticism of that portion of our footnote 87, Landry at 429, which states that state law fraud may serve as a source of substantive law for the mail fraud claim and the question of pre-emption which they raise, we neither approve nor disapprove their position. The resolution of this issue must await the development of all the facts before the trier of fact.
In all other respects, the petition of ALPA and Huttinger for rehearing is denied.

. TACA International Airlines. S.A. was also a defendant in that action. TACA's petition for rehearing, however, has been denied.

. We also inadvertently stated: “As we found above that Huttinger clearly did breach fiduciary duties, the factual issues [as to whether 18 U.S.C. § 664 was violated] remain to be resolved." TACA at 432. We intended to assert that "Huttinger clearly did possess fiduciary duties.” Obviously, however, in light of our discussion herein, we no longer make any conclusive findings with respect to Huttinger's fiduciary duties, except to hold that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether or not he had any fiduciary duties. Factual issues also exist as to whether any fiduciary duties which Huttinger may have had were breached.