Court Opinion

ID: 9467559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:51:42.551586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:24.679696
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting;
I respectfully dissent.
Grimes contended that the defendants failed to furnish him with a copy of annual reports and pertinent schedules in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(4) and 1132(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). As pointed out in the majority opinion, the ERISA requirements for furnishing the reports were deferred and thus were not applicable at the time Grimes made his request. The parallel requirements 1 of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (WPPDA) for furnishing such reports, however, continued in effect. 29 U.S.C. §§ 306, 307 and 308. Thus Grimes was entitled to the information he requested, although in his argument to the trial court he referred to the wrong statutory authority.
In Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1978), a plaintiff had somewhat similarly argued that the wrong section of a statute was applicable. On appeal he asserted that another section applied. This court stated:
Generally a federal appellate court will not consider an issue not passed upon below. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, *1069120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); United States v. Patrin, 575 F.2d 708, 712-713 (9 Cir. 1978). However, as we held in United States v. Patrin, supra, this rule is not without its exceptions. One of the exceptions recognized in Patrin is that when “the issue conceded or neglected in the trial court is purely one of law and either does not affect or rely upon the factual record developed by the parties, [citations omitted], the court of appeals may consent to consider it.” United States v. Patrin, supra, at 712.
582 F.2d at 1217.2
Grimes presented evidence which indicates that the defendants failed to furnish him reports to which he was entitled under the provisions of the Welfare and Pension Plan Disclosure Act. Under the regulations, to which the trial court referred in its Memorandum of Decision, the reporting requirements of that act continued in effect until the parallel ERISA provisions became effective. Particularly in view of the somewhat confusing situation existing as to the date when the ERISA provisions became effective, I think that it was error to grant summary judgment to the defendants merely because Grimes referred to the wrong statute as being applicable.3

. The WPPDA provisions referred to in this dissent are the now repealed codifications of Pub.L.No. 85-836, Stat. (1958). For a description of the information required in the reports, compare 29 U.S.C. § 306 with 29 U.S.C. § 1023; for a participant’s right to request information from the administrator, compare 29 U.S.C. § 307(a)(2) with 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(4); for the penalty provision applicable when an administrator refuses to comply, compare 29 U.S.C. § 308(b) with 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c).

. See Telco Leasing, Inc. v. Transwestern Title Co., 630 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1980) (court below committed plain error in applying California law instead of Illinois Law); United States v. Gabriel, 625 F.2d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 1980).

. Although Grimes eventually received reports from the Department of Labor, the defendants never furnished the information that Grimes had requested on several occasions. Therefore the defendants violated their obligation to furnish reports within 30 days of a participant’s request under either WPPDA or ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 307(a)(2), 308(b); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(4), 1132(c). Because ERISA was not yet applicable, Grimes should recover at most the $50 a day penalty in 29 U.S.C. § 308(b), not the $100 a day in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c).