United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute over retirement benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs interests had not vested, and the court lacked ERISA jurisdiction, because the collective bargaining agreement in question reserved defendant's right to change the welfare benefits in question; and 2) plaintiffs' contractual claims did not trigger jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act because the rights in question were not vested.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/05/2007
• Decided 09/22/2008
• Published 09/22/2008

Judges

• Before:  DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SUSAN P. GRABER, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas K. Doyle, Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, Portland, OR, argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants and filed briefs., Jay E. Sushelsky, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC;  Barbara A. Jones, AARP Foundation Litigation, Pasadena, CA;  and Melvin R. Radowitz, AARP, Washington, DC, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff-appellants' petition for rehearing en banc for amicus curiae AARP., Monique Olivier, The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff-appellants' petition for rehearing en banc for amicus curiae California Employment Lawyers Association.


• For Appellees:
  
• Douglas S. Parker, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, Anchorage, AK, argued the cause for defendant-appellee and filed a brief.  Douglas S. Parker and Michael F. McCabe, Littler Mendelson, Portland, OR, filed a supplemental brief.