Foster
Honolulu Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee of United Ass'n Local Union No. 675 v. Foster
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Schroeder, J.
This appeal arises from a union’s action to recover the costs of training James H. Foster, III as an apprentice in the plumbing and pipefitting industry. Honolulu Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee of United Association Local Union No. 675 (“HJA”) trained Foster for four- and-a-half years on the condition that he work for a union employer upon completion of his apprenticeship. Foster breached his end of the deal by working for a non-union employer and failing to repay the $13,183.92 that HJA expended in training him. HJA brought this action under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3), to recover those costs.
*1236 The primary question on appeal is whether HJA’s action to enforce the terms of its agreement with Foster constitutes “appropriate equitable relief’ under § 1132(a)(3). Applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 , 122 S.Ct. 708 , 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002), we hold that it does not, and we therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Foster. Foster also seeks attorney’s fees in defending this action. We hold that the district court properly denied his fee request, so we also affirm the denial of…