Cline v. The Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2000).-These consolidated appeals arise out of an attempted class action against several entities and numerous individuals brought to impose ERISA status and liability upon an employee benefit plan. The defendants assert the plan at issue is an IRA plan not covered by Parts 2 and 3 of Title I of ERISA. In 1977, Appellee The Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting Co. ("TIMEC") and Appellee International Union of Petroleum & Industrial Workers (the "Union") created a group Individual Retirement Annuity (IRA) plan for the benefit of Union members who were employees of TIMEC.
In
October, 1996, Appellants filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees, alleging a wide range of ERISA violations
centering on the documentation, participation, reporting and disclosure
provisions of ERISA. The heart of
the complaint is Appellants' contention that ERISA requires inclusion in the
Plan of employees with one year of service (instead of three) and 1000 hours of
work (instead of 1600)—amendments that had been made after the Plan was in
effect.
On
the question of standing of individual plaintiffs, the district court properly
held that actions against ERISA fiduciaries generally cannot be brought on
behalf of individuals. As for the
merits of appellants’ claims, because the Plan was not subject to Parts 2 and
3 of Title I of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§
1051-86, all of Appellants' claims with regard to the minimum
participation and vesting requirements, specified reporting and disclosure
requirements and minimum funding requirements contained in these sections were
without merit.
On the claim that appellees wrongly refused to disclose requested documents, this court pointed out that under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c), only the plan "administrator" can be held liable for failing to comply with the reporting and disclosure requirements—and here appellants failed to show the administrator status of any particular defendant.
On
appellants’ prohibited transactions claim, this court reasoned that even
assuming that Appellees had failed to contribute adequately to the Plan,
Appellants' prohibited transaction argument failed because such funds had not
become "plan assets" since the contributions do not become plan assets
over which fiduciaries of the plan have a fiduciary obligation until the
employer pays the employer contributions over to the plan.
The other claims, such as the one for an accounting, failed for lack of evidence necessary to create a question of material fact. Finally, the District Court did not make a mistake of law nor did it abuse its discretion with regard to its denial of the claim for attorneys’ fees, since the record did not reflect evidence of bad faith under the factors set out in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980).
