Landwehr

Landwehr v. DuPree

Good Law
72 F.3d 726·95 Daily Journal DAR 16450·1995 WL 733955·19 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2638·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35023
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 12, 1995Nos. 93-36166, 94-35003California6,603 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

The plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the Astoria Seafood Company Profit Sharing Plan (“the Plan”). They brought this action on behalf of the Plan, alleging that Darren Du-Pree and his co-defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). According to the plaintiffs, DuPree, a chauffeur for the company’s owner, improperly received funds totalling $89,-000 from the Plan. The district court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against DuPree, concluding that DuPree was a “party in interest” with respect to the Plan and that he engaged in transactions prohibited by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (a). The court ordered that DuPree make restitution to the Plan totalling $58,000 in monthly installments of $600, but concluded that DuPree was not liable for an additional $31,000 that he transferred to a Louisiana bank at the request of the Plan’s fiduciary.

We conclude that DuPree is hable to the Plan for at least $54,000 of the sums that he improperly received, but agree with the district court that he is not hable for the $31,000 that he transferred to Louisiana. We remand for further proceedings on the question whether he was…

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.