Eun Sug Cha v. 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUN SUG CHA, No. 15-55435
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10151-SJO-AJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
1199SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Eun Sug Cha appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for
disability pension benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for clear error a district court’s findings of fact, including those underlying
the district court’s choice of the applicable standard of review in an ERISA case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6); Prichard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 783 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th
Cir. 2015). We review de novo a district court’s conclusions of law. Arnold v.
Arrow Transp. Co. of Del., 926 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1991). 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 affirm.
The district properly reviewed the Board of Trustees’ and its Retirement
Committee’s (collectively “Plan Administrator”) decision for an abuse of
discretion because the plan terms unambiguously granted discretionary authority to
the Plan Administrator. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,
963 (9th Cir. 2006); Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1154,
1159, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001) (plan language providing for “full, final, conclusive and
binding power” of administrator to construe and interpret the plan confers
discretion).
2 15-55435
The district court properly concluded that the Plan Administrator’s denial of
benefits was based upon a reasonable interpretation of the plan’s eligibility criteria
and that the Plan Administrator did not abuse its discretion by denying Cha’s
claim. See McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court properly denied Cha’s request for a jury trial because there
is no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial in an ERISA action. See
Thomas v. Or. Fruit Prods. Co., 228 F.3d 991, 995-97 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth
standard of review). The district court did not abuse its discretion by conducting a
bench trial on the administrative record and by denying Cha’s request for oral
argument. See Opeta v. Nw. Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Emps., 484 F.3d
1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review for a district court’s
decision to admit or exclude evidence that was not before the plan administrator);
Abatie, 458 F.3d at 970 (“[I]n general, a district court may review only the
administrative record when considering whether the plan administrator abused its
discretion . . . .”); Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cty., Inc., 171 F.3d 1197,
1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review for a district court’s decision
not to hear oral argument and requiring a showing of prejudice where a party
waives oral argument by not requesting it).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-55435