Gaudet v. Sheet Metal Wrkr ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 6, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30307
_____________________
STANLEY J. GAUDET; AUDREY CHAIX GAUDET,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
THE SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND;
THE SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNIONS & COUNCILS
PENSION FUND; THE NEW ORLEANS SHEET METAL
WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 11 PENSION FUND,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-718-K
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stanley Gaudet and Audrey Gaudet (the Gaudets) brought this
action under ERISA to obtain pension benefits they contend were
wrongfully denied by the Sheet Metal Workers Local Unions and
Councils Fund (LUCF) and the Sheet Metal Workers National Pension
Fund (NPF). The district court granted summary judgment in favor
of LUCF based on the Gaudets’ failure to exhaust their
administrative remedies. The district court granted summary
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
judgment in favor of NPF on the grounds that the plan administrator
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that NPF owed no
benefits to the Gaudets under the terms of the plan. The Gaudets
appeal.
We review a district court’s determination that exhaustion of
administrative remedies is required for abuse of discretion.
Bourgeois v. Pension Plan for the Employees of Santa Fe Int’l
Corp., 215 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs seeking
benefits from an ERISA plan must exhaust available administrative
remedies before bringing suit to recover benefits. Id. However,
we have recognized an exception to the exhaustion requirement where
pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile or the reviewing
committee is hostile or biased against the claimant. The Gaudets
offered no evidence to the district court that pursuit of
administrative remedies would have been futile or that the LUCF
reviewing committee would be hostile to their claims or biased
against them. Therefore, the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of LUCF.
We review a denial of benefits by a plan administrator for
abuse of discretion when the plan gives the administrator the
discretionary authority to interpret the plan. Spacek v. The
Maritime Assoc., I.L.A. Pension Plan, 134 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir.
1988). The Gaudets contend that NPF denied them pension benefits
as an illegal offset to money owed by Stanley Gaudet to the NPF by
virtue of criminal and civil judgments against him arising from his
earlier embezzlement of pension funds. NPF argues, and the record
reflects, that the plan administrator relied on the terms of the
plan that no person covered by the plan is entitled to obtain more
than one pension from the fund in denying the Gaudets’ claim.
Because the money Stanley Gaudet embezzled from the plan for his
personal use exceeded the amount he was entitled to receive as a
pension, the plan administrator determined that the provision of
the plan barring duplicate pensions applied to prevent the
distribution of a second pension to Stanley Gaudet. Although the
provision in the plan may be ambiguous, the Gaudets have not shown
that the administrator abused its discretion in interpreting the
plan to deny benefits, particularly given the existence of a prior
court order requiring Stanley Gaudet to forfeit his pension
benefits and the equities that are plain in the factual and legal
circumstances of this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.