Opinion
No. 14-55734
11-21-2016
KENNETH J. BAILEY, for himself and as executor of the Estate of Linda Jean Weeks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION BANK RETIREMENT PLAN; EMPLOYEE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:12-cv-01754-R-SP MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Kenneth J. Bailey appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for surviving domestic partner benefits and breach of fiduciary duty. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). Where an ERISA-governed plan grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, we review for an abuse of discretion the administrator's interpretation of the plan, and de novo the district court's application of this standard. Tapley v. Locals 302 & 612 of the Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs-Emp'rs Constr. Indus. Ret. Plan, 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bailey's claim for surviving domestic partner benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) because Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the plan administrator's denial of benefits was an abuse of its discretion. See McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (under abuse of discretion standard, plan administrator's denial of benefits must be upheld "if it is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan's terms and if it was made in good faith").
Summary judgment on Bailey's breach of fiduciary duty claim was proper because Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the failure to inform Bailey or his domestic partner of the registration requirement for surviving domestic partner benefits was a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties. See 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a) (setting forth standard of care and duties of plan fiduciary); In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing non-moving party's burden to show specific facts demonstrating existence of genuine disputes for trial).
AFFIRMED.