Lehr v. Perri Electric, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 PAUL LEHR and COLLEEN LEHR, No. 2:17-cv-1188 WBS AC 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 FRANK M. PERRI; PERRI ELECTRIC, INC., a California Corporation; 16 PERRI ELECTRIC INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN; PERRI ELECTRIC 17 INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST FUND; and DOES 1-50, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 22 Plaintiffs Paul and Colleen Lehr brought this action 23 against defendants Frank M. Perri (“Frank Jr.”), Perri Electric, 24 Inc. (“Perri Electric”), Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, 25 Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund,1 and Does 1-50, 26 alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 27 1 The court refers to the Profit Sharing Plan and the 28 Profit Sharing Trust Fund collectively as “the Plan defendants.” 1 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ § 1001 et seq. Before the court is 2 the Plan defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 91), which this court has 4 converted into a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 101). 5 This court described much of the factual and procedural 6 background to the lawsuit in its order granting summary judgment 7 to Frank Jr. and Perri Electric. (Mem. & Order: Re Mot. for 8 Summ. J. (“Summ. J. Order”) (Docket No. 56).) There, the court 9 granted Frank Jr.’s and Perri Electric’s motion on the grounds 10 that plaintiffs lacked statutory standing under ERISA. (See id. 11 at 6-13.) However, because counsel for those defendants 12 clarified that he did not represent the Plan defendants, the 13 court limited its grant of summary judgment to Frank Jr. and 14 Perri Electric only. (Id. at 13.) 15 The Plan defendants eventually filed their own motion 16 to dismiss, though they did so after filing an answer. (Docket 17 Nos. 88, 91.) The court then converted the motion to a motion 18 for summary judgment because the motion to dismiss concerns a 19 substantive element of plaintiffs’ claims and matters outside the 20 pleadings. (Docket No. 101 (citing Leeson v. Transam. Disability 21 Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hether a 22 plaintiff has statutory standing in an ERISA action is a merits- 23 based determination, not a subject matter jurisdiction issue.”).) 24 Plaintiffs concede that the court has already 25 determined that they do not have statutory standing under ERISA 26 to assert their claims against Frank Jr. and Perri Electric, and 27 they apparently concede that this determination applies equally 28 to their claims against the Plan defendants, though they continue 1 to argue they have standing. (See Pls.’ Opp’n 2 (Docket No. 2 100); Pls.’ Supp. Opp’n 4-6 (Docket No. 107).) The court 3 reaffirms its prior determination that plaintiffs do not have 4 standing with respect to their claims against Frank Jr. and Perri 5 Electric, and finds that this determination applies equally to 6 | plaintiffs’ claims against the Plan defendants. (See Summ. J. 7 Order.) Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment to 8 the Plan defendants. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss 10 brought by Perri Electric Ine. Profit Sharing Plan and Perri 11 Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund (Docket No. 91) be, 12 and the same hereby is, converted to a motion for summary 13 judgment and is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against Perri 14 Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Perri Electric Ince. Profit 15 Sharing Trust Fund are hereby DISMISSED. As all claims have now 16 | been dismissed, the Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment in 17 favor of all defendants. 18 | Dated: September 25, 2019 Md ak. 2 / 19 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28