Barboza v. California Ass'n of Professional Firefighters
Opinion
Opinion
David Barboza and long-term disability plan (“Plan”) administrators (collectively, the defendants) cross appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, as well as the district court’s order denying each party’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The defendants also appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for Rule 11 sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment to the defendants on Barboza’s claim that they breached their fiduciary duties by failing to file Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990. Barboza has not provided any evidence that the defendants failed to “(1) investigate the expert’s qualifications, (2) provide the expert-with complete and accurate information, and (3) make certain that reliance on the expert’s advice is reasonably justified under the circumstances,” Howard v. Shay, 100 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted), in violation of the “prudent man standard of care,” see 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a), when they did not file Form 990 on the advice of their legal counsel and,accountant.