Reyes

Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union

Good Law

170 F. Supp. 3d 1239·2016 WL 1109308·62 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1468·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37221

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2016Case No. 14-cv-05596-JSTCalifornia4,694 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tigar, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

ECF No.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 73. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF No. 79. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“PPA”), challenging an amendment to the “Golden 80” and “Golden 90” adjustable benefits by the Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry International Pension Fund (the “Pension Fund”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 44 ¶ 1.

This is the second time that the Pension Fund has attempted to implement such an amendment. The Pension Fund’s first attempt, in July 2010, was invalidated by a district court in New York, which found that the amendment violated ERISA’s “anti-cutback rule.” See In re Bakery and Confectionery Union and Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan, 865 F.Supp.2d 469, 474 (S.D.N.Y.2012), aff'd Alcantara v. Bakery and Confectionery Union and Indus. Int’l Pension Fund Pension Plan, 751…

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.