LY NGUYEN V. RTS PACKAGING LLC CONSOLIDATED, No. 14-55688 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LY NGUYEN, No. 14-55688 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00803-CJC-E v. MEMORANDUM* RTS PACKAGING LLC CONSOLIDATED PENSION PLAN; RTS PACKAGING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Ly Nguyen appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging that defendants RTS Packaging LLC Consolidated Pension Plan (the “Plan”) and RTS Packaging, LLC, violated the Employment Retirement Income * 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). Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for surviving spouse benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nguyen’s claim that the Plan’s duration-of-relationship requirement for survivor benefits was discriminatory because Nguyen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were state actors. See Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 923-24 (1982) (Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state action); George v. Pac.-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (actions against private parties for violation of constitutional rights require a showing that the private parties’ conduct constituted state action). AFFIRMED. 2 14-55688

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.