Toensing

Toensing v. Brown

Good Law
374 F. Supp. 191·88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2643·1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9331
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1974C-73-0753-CBRCalifornia7,129 words

Opinion

Opinion

Renfrew, J.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND JUDGMENT

The named plaintiffs, retired carpenters eligible for retirement benefits from the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, have brought this suit as a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the administration of that Trust Fund by defendants, current and former trustees of the Trust Fund. Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 186 (e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1337 , and also under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs have stated two causes of action. First, they complain that the trustees decided, on or about July 1, 1971 [actually July 23, 1971], to increase the pensions of those carpenters retiring on or after July 1, 1971, more than the pensions of carpenters who retired before that date. Plaintiffs attack this action as grossly discrimina tory, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of the trustees’ authority which has raised the serious possibility of a depletion of the Pension Trust Fund. Plaintiffs assert that defendants’ action violates 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5) which requires monies paid to such a trust fund to be “for the sole and exclusive benefit” of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.