Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Norine Sylvia CAVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee, Delta of California, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM **
Norine Sylvia Cave appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cave's breach of fiduciary duty claim because Cave failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2), 1132(a)(3); Gabriel v. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund, 773 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A claim [under § 1132(a)(3)] fails if the plaintiff cannot establish ․ that the remedy sought is appropriate equitable relief ․” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Wise v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 600 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2010) (“To allege a fiduciary breach under § 1132(a)(2), [the plaintiff] must allege that the fiduciary injured the benefit plan or otherwise jeopardize[d] the entire plan or put at risk plan assets.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, some alterations in original)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cave's claim for penalties because Cave failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant failed to produce documents that a plan administrator is required to produce. See Lee v. ING Groep, N.V., 829 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Penalties under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) can only be assessed against plan administrators for failing to produce documents that they are required to produce as plan administrators.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit Cave's contentions that counsel for defendant and the district judge had conflicts of interest.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-17134
Decided: December 18, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)