22 Cited authorities

Bay Area Laundry v. Ferbar
522 U.S. 192 (1997) Cited 625 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a new statute of limitations starts to run with each missed payment or when payment of the debt is accelerated
Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.
669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 288 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that issue preclusion applied where the first district court "necessarily had to adjudicate" the same objections the same litigant raised in the second district court
Peick v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.
724 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1983) Cited 110 times
Holding that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the MPPAA do not infringe upon constitutional rights
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Allyn Transp
832 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 90 times
Holding that "notice to the withdrawing employer is notice to all members of the controlled group for the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)."
T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc. v. Management-Labor Welfare & Pension Funds
756 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 91 times
Holding that determination of relationship between MPPAA and unrelated statute did not require arbitration
Findlay Truck Line, Inc. v. Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund
726 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2013) Cited 33 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that injunctive relief is a form of equity, which is generally subject to the court's discretion.
Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund
847 F.2d 113 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 66 times
Holding that under ERISA common law a defrauded employer has a cause of action for the return of any sums that were fraudulently assessed by a pension plan
Borntrager v. Cent. States, S.E. S.W. Areas
425 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2005) Cited 32 times
Holding that district court's remand order was not a final decision, even though the order did not state the court was retaining jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court entered a final judgment, because the district court had not resolved the merits of the underlying wrongful expulsion dispute
Heavenly Hana LLC v. Hotel Union & Hotel Indus. of Haw. Pension Plan
Case No. 14-cv-03743-JCS (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) Cited 4 times 1 Legal Analyses
Confronting whether, in the ERISA context, "a buyer's lack of diligence can satisfy the notice requirement for successor liability," and stating that "no court — anywhere — has ever held that a subsequent employer can be held liable for a predecessor's ERISA obligations that it merely should have known about, unless the employer actually knew at least the factual basis for the liability."
Board of Trustees of the Construction Laborers' Pension Trust for Southern California v. M.M. Sundt Construction Co.
37 F.3d 1419 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 16 times
No. 93-55428. Submitted October 5, 1994. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4. Decided October 19, 1994. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing November 23, 1994. Herbert J. Klein John S. Miller, Cox, Castle Nicholson, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Mark T. Bennett David P. Wolds, Merrill, Schultz Wolds, San Diego, CA, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 346,675 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 24,568 times 61 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 1001 Cited 20,533 times 59 Legal Analyses
Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”
Section 1002 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 1002 Cited 11,053 times 60 Legal Analyses
Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans
Rule 57 - Declaratory Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 Cited 1,557 times 4 Legal Analyses
Preserving right to trial by jury in declaratory judgment action under circumstances and in manner provided in Rules 38 and 39
Section 1381 - Withdrawal liability established; criteria and definitions
29 U.S.C. § 1381 Cited 1,150 times 6 Legal Analyses
Obligating employers who exit multiemployer pension plans to pay withdrawal liability equaling the employer's share of the plan's unvested benefits
Section 1401 - Resolution of disputes
29 U.S.C. § 1401 Cited 835 times
Establishing a presumption of correctness for "the findings of fact made by the arbitrator"
Section 1399 - Notice, collection, etc., of withdrawal liability
29 U.S.C. § 1399 Cited 717 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting the employer 90 days to ask the plan sponsor to review its determination of the employer's liability
Section 1451 - Civil actions
29 U.S.C. § 1451 Cited 615 times 4 Legal Analyses
Stating that, "[i]n any action under this section to compel an employer to pay withdrawal liability, any failure of the employer to make any withdrawal liability payment within the time prescribed shall be treated in the same manner as a delinquent contribution"
Section 1383 - Complete withdrawal
29 U.S.C. § 1383 Cited 526 times 5 Legal Analyses
Listing additional requirements
Section 4221.10 - Costs
29 C.F.R. § 4221.10 Cited 18 times
The costs of arbitration under this part shall be borne by the parties as follows: (a)Witnesses. Each party to the dispute shall bear the costs of its own witnesses. (b)Other costs of arbitration. Except as provided in § 4221.6(d) with respect to a transcript of the hearing, the parties shall bear the other costs of the arbitration proceedings equally unless the arbitrator determines otherwise. The parties may, however, agree to a different allocation of costs if their agreement is entered into after

JB Viva Vegas, L.P. v. Nevada Resort Association-IATSE Local 720 Retirement Plan

22 Cited authorities

Holding that a new statute of limitations starts to run with each missed payment or when payment of the debt is accelerated

Holding that issue preclusion applied where the first district court "necessarily had to adjudicate" the same objections the same litigant raised in the second district court

Holding that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the MPPAA do not infringe upon constitutional rights

Holding that "notice to the withdrawing employer is notice to all members of the controlled group for the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)."

Holding that determination of relationship between MPPAA and unrelated statute did not require arbitration

Holding that injunctive relief is a form of equity, which is generally subject to the court's discretion.

Holding that under ERISA common law a defrauded employer has a cause of action for the return of any sums that were fraudulently assessed by a pension plan

Holding that district court's remand order was not a final decision, even though the order did not state the court was retaining jurisdiction, and the Clerk of Court entered a final judgment, because the district court had not resolved the merits of the underlying wrongful expulsion dispute

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”

Holding that ERISA is a federal law that sets standards of protection for individuals in most voluntarily established, private-sector retirement plans

Preserving right to trial by jury in declaratory judgment action under circumstances and in manner provided in Rules 38 and 39

Obligating employers who exit multiemployer pension plans to pay withdrawal liability equaling the employer's share of the plan's unvested benefits

Establishing a presumption of correctness for "the findings of fact made by the arbitrator"

Granting the employer 90 days to ask the plan sponsor to review its determination of the employer's liability

Stating that, "[i]n any action under this section to compel an employer to pay withdrawal liability, any failure of the employer to make any withdrawal liability payment within the time prescribed shall be treated in the same manner as a delinquent contribution"

Listing additional requirements