Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“employers and plan sponsors do not act in a fiduciary capacity when they modify, adopt or amend plans”
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ullico Inc. Litigation (dcd, 2009-03-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ullico Inc. Litigation
D.D.C. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
employers and plan sponsors do not act in a fiduciary capacity when they modify, adopt or amend plans
cited Cited as authority (rule) Solomon v. McDonough
W.D. Okla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada
D.D.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oliver v. Black Knight Asset Management, LLC
D.D.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
See Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, 551 U.S. 96, 101-02 , 127 S.Ct. 2310 , 168 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007); Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 890-91 , 116 S.Ct. 1783 , 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996) (applying rule to pension benefit plan); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 , 115 S.Ct. 1223 , 131 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995) (applying rule to welfare benefit plan); Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.Cir.2002).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Ullico Inc. Litigation
D.D.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 444 , 119 S.Ct. 755 , 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999) (“an employer’s decision to *218 amend a pension plan ... does not implicate the employer’s fiduciary duties”); Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 891 , 116 S.Ct. 1783 , 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996) (“the act of amending a pension plan does not trigger ERISA’s fiduciary provisions”); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 , 115 S.Ct. 1223 , 131 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995) (“[ejmployers or other plan sponsors are generally free under ERISA, for any reason at any time, to adopt, mo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leal Santos v. Gonzales
D. Mass. · 2007 · confidence medium
Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.Cir.2002); McMasters v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir.2001); Murphy v. F.D.I.C., 208 F.3d 959 , 966 (11th Cir.2000); Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Ulico Casualty Co.
E.D.N.Y · 2005 · confidence medium
Compare Burke v. Bodewes, 250 F.Supp.2d 262, 270 (W.D.N.Y.2003) (holding that “there is nothing in the express holdings of [the Supreme Court cases] which directly refutes the Second Circuit’s rationale with respect to the nature of trustees’ duties in administering a collectively bargained mul-ti-employer plan.”); with Walling v. Brady, 125 F.3d 114, 118-20 (3d Cir.1997) (“[W]e hold that the simple fact that the plan at issue is a multiemployer plan is insufficient to cause the fiduciary duty to attach to the Trustees’ actions”) and Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fuchs v. Allen
N.D.N.Y. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.Cir.2002) (“Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decisions or ERISA itself creates an exemption for multiemployer pension plans.... [The] trustees involved in this case did not act in a fiduciary capacity when they made changes affecting the determination of ap-pellees’ benefits.”), aff’g 134 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2000).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.
N.D. Ohio · 2004 · confidence medium
Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.Cir.2002) (emphasis added).
cited Cited "see" Janese v. Fay
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, 286 F.3d 598, 599 (D.C.Cir.2002).
discussed Cited "see" Sierra Club v. Flowers
D.D.C. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat'l Pension Fund, 201 F.Supp.2d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C.1999) (citing In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1987)), aff'd, 286 F.3d 598 (D.C.Cir.2002) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert E. HARTLINE, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
SHEET METAL WORKERS’ NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Et Al., Appellees
01-7078.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 23, 2002.
286 F.3d 598
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 7381
2002 WL 654435
David S. Preminger argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was George M. Chuzi., Steuart H. Thomsen argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Nicholas T. Christakos and Stephen M. Rosenblatt.
Edwards, Per Curiam, Randolph, Williams.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The parties have raised two main issues on appeal. The first is whether a transferee court is bound by the substantive law of the transferor court when a federal law claim is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The second is whether the actions taken by the appellees with respect to the multiemployer pension plan were actions subject to review under the fiduciary duty provisions found in section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1).

For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion of May 4, 1999, we affirm the district court’s decision to apply the law of this Circuit. See Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund, No. 98-1274 (D.D.C. May 4, 1999). When a case that is governed by federal law is transferred from one federal court to another, the transferee court should decide the federal claim based on its own circuit’s interpretation of the law. See Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C.Cir.1987) (holding that transferee courts are not bound to apply the decisions of transferor courts with respect to federal law claims).

In addition, for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion of September 14, 2000, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the changes the appellees made to the multiemployer pension plan at issue in this case did not constitute a fiduciary act. See Hartline v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund, 134 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2000). The Supreme Court made it clear in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78, 115 S.Ct. 1223, 131 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995), Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 116 S.Ct. 1783, 135 L.Ed.2d 153 (1996), and Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 119 S.Ct. 755, 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999), that employers and plan sponsors do not act in a fiduciary capacity when they modify, adopt or amend plans. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s decisions or ERISA itself creates an exemption for multiemployer pension plans. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the multiemployer pension fund trustees involved in this case did not act in a fiduciary capacity when they made changes affecting the determination of appellants’ benefits. See, e.g., Walling v. Brady, 125 F.3d 114 (3d Cir.1997) (holding that multiemployer pension[*600] fund trustees do not act in a fiduciary duty when designing or amending the plan).