Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Aggregates
Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Kino Aggregates, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-06766
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pension Plan v. Kino Aggregates, Judge Chesney granted Eleanor Plant’s summary judgment motion on all three claims, citing inadequate evidence and no opposition to one claim.
Eleanor Plant prevailed on all three claims asserted against her. The plaintiffs—Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, James E. Murray, and Dan Reding—did not obtain the requested relief from Plant.
What happened
In Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Kino Aggregates, the plaintiffs claimed Eleanor Plant was responsible for Kino’s pension withdrawal liability because she and her husband allegedly belonged to Kino’s controlled group. They also sought an order requiring information and a constructive trust over assets allegedly distributed to Plant.
Plant asked for summary judgment on all three claims. The court granted the motion on the third claim because the plaintiffs did not oppose that part of the motion. For the first two claims, the court found that the plaintiffs had not provided admissible evidence that Plant and her husband together owned at least 80% of Kino’s stock in 2016.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Plant’s motion for summary judgment. The court relied on the lack of evidence creating a genuine factual dispute and did not consider Plant’s alternative argument.
The detailed version
- Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Aggregates · No. 3:21-cv-06766
- Maxine Chesney
- Nov. 16, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs were Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, James E. Murray, and Dan Reding. They sued Kino Aggregates, Inc. and others, including Eleanor Plant. The court addressed Plant’s motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial.
The First Amended Complaint asserted three claims against Plant:
- Withdrawal liability: The plaintiffs alleged that Kino completely withdrew from the Pension Plan in 2016 and that Plant was jointly and severally responsible because she was allegedly part of Kino’s controlled group.
- Failure to provide information: The plaintiffs alleged that Kino failed to provide requested information and sought an injunction requiring Plant to provide that information.
- Constructive trust: The plaintiffs alleged that, after Kino’s corporate status was forfeited, Plant distributed assets to Kino’s shareholders rather than creditors. They sought a constructive trust over the remaining assets and property she received.
Court’s analysis
The parties agreed that Plant could not be held liable on the first and second claims unless the evidence showed that she and her husband together owned at least 80% of Kino’s stock as of 2016. Plant argued that the plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence establishing that ownership percentage.
The plaintiffs identified Kino’s tax returns from 2008 through 2015 as their evidence. Those returns stated that Plant and her husband together owned 90% of Kino’s stock. The court treated the returns as hearsay. It also noted that the copies retained by the accountant who prepared them were unsigned, and that the accountant could not recall who provided the stock-ownership information in the returns.
The court concluded that Plant had met her initial burden of showing an absence of evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ position. Once that occurred, the plaintiffs had to produce evidence supporting their claims. The court found that they cited no evidence of the required stock ownership other than the tax returns, which were insufficient to create a triable factual dispute.
Ruling
The court granted Plant’s motion for summary judgment as to the third claim because the plaintiffs stated that they did not oppose that relief. The court also granted summary judgment in Plant’s favor on the first and second claims because the plaintiffs lacked sufficient admissible evidence of the required stock ownership. The court therefore granted Plant’s motion for summary judgment. It stated that it did not consider Plant’s alternative argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.