TRUSTEES, U.A. LOCAL 38 DBPP V. TRUSTEES, PLUMBERS & PIPE NPF, No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. LOCAL 38 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, No. 16-15228 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04703-YGR Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPE FITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 13, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Trustees of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Local 38”) appeal the district court’s denial of its motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration awards. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The parties proceeded to arbitration after the arbitrator found that the preconditions to arbitration had been met. The parties stipulated that if the arbitrator found liability, and the parties could not agree on the amount due, the arbitrator “would retain jurisdiction” to decide the amount due. This stipulation controls, and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by determining that Pension Protection Act (PPA) contributions were part of the amount Local 38 owed. The arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by determining that PPA contributions were part of “Employer Contributions” that must be remitted under the terms of the United Association Pension Fund Reciprocal Agreement. There is no “well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable” law that bars PPA contributions from being reciprocated. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis removed) (quoting Carter v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)). The arbitrator could not, therefore, have manifestly disregarded the law. See id. at 879–80. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.