OR Teamsters Emp'ers Trust v. Hillsboro Garbage Disposal, No. 13-35555 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseOTET appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Hillsboro Garbage, Robert Henderson, and the Estate of Darrol Jackson. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on (1) OTET’s breach of contract claims because the district court found those claims to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.; and (2) OTET’s restitution and specific performance claims because the district court concluded that those claims were not cognizable under ERISA as they sought legal - not equitable - relief. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the common law breach of contract claims as preempted by ERISA; the district court properly dismissed the restitution and specific performance claims where recent circuit precedent does not support OTET's argument; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying OTET the right to file a third amended complaint where OTET was given two opportunities to amend its complaint and unilaterally decided to eliminate the fraud count and it does not contend that it acquired any knew knowledge or that any misconduct occurred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Employee Retirement Income Security Act The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Hillsboro Garbage Disposal in an action brought against a subscribing employer by a health and benefit plan that was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plan provided health and welfare benefits to workers pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between a union and the employer, Hillsboro Garbage Disposal. Non-bargaining unit workers were eligible to participate in the plan if they were bona fide employees of Hillsboro Garbage. Hillsboro Garbage, however, made
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.