Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Pacific Racing…

Background

The Pension Plan for the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers is a multiemployer employee-benefit pension plan. Dan Reding and James Murray are fiduciaries of the Plan. The plaintiffs brought an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover withdrawal liability that they allege the defendants owe after Pacific Racing Association and Pacific Racing Association II allegedly withdrew from the Plan.

The Plan sent Pacific Racing an assessment of withdrawal liability on November 21, 2024, with a schedule of quarterly payments. The Plan says it did not receive a request for review within the 90-day period provided by ERISA. It later sent an acceleration notice demanding immediate payment of the assessment. Pacific Racing contended that it did not receive the original assessment and did not learn of the demand until receiving the acceleration notice. Pacific Racing submitted a request for review on April 18, 2025, initiated arbitration on July 24, 2025, and paid $135,112.41 representing three quarterly installments. The record did not establish whether Pacific Racing continued making quarterly payments.

Motion and Arbitration

The plaintiffs filed this case on July 18, 2025. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. While that motion was pending, arbitration proceeded, and the arbitrator issued a decision on November 20, 2025. The parties described that decision as rejecting the plaintiffs’ timeliness challenge and finding that the defendants timely initiated arbitration, while leaving the district court to decide whether the defendants owed the full withdrawal liability.

The plaintiffs argued that the arbitrator’s timeliness decision was incorrect and that the court should allow the case to proceed. They alternatively asked the court to order an interim payment of the full withdrawal liability as calculated by the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that the timeliness questions belonged to the arbitrator and that any court review of the arbitrator’s decision was premature.

Court’s Analysis

The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act requires disputes between an employer and a multiemployer plan sponsor concerning withdrawal-liability determinations to be resolved through arbitration. The court focused on the parties’ factual dispute over whether and when Pacific Racing received the assessment. Because the facts about receipt of the notice were disputed, the court concluded that the timeliness of Pacific Racing’s request for review and subsequent initiation of arbitration was an issue for the arbitrator.

The court also concluded that it could not review the arbitrator’s timeliness decision at this stage. Under the statute, an action to enforce, vacate, or modify an arbitration award may be brought upon completion of the arbitration proceedings. The plaintiffs did not contend that arbitration was complete and provided no authority for an immediate review of the timeliness ruling.

Ruling

The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. It ruled that timeliness was an arbitrable issue and stayed the case as to the amount of the defendants’ withdrawal liability, if any. The court did not decide whether the defendants owed the full amount or whether an interim payment should be ordered. Instead, it required the parties to meet and confer about that interim-payment question and report the results in their joint case-management statement due March 24, 2026.