Seay

Southern California v. Seay

Good Law
66 F. App'x 114
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 16, 2003No. 02-55796, 02-56042; D.C. No. CV-99-08045-WJRCalifornia1,023 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Peter Sardagna appeals the district court’s orders and judgment for Glaziers Plan 1 and CB Richard Ellis granting the Plan equitable relief from an August 1995 Operating Agreement that the court found to be a prohibited transaction with a party in interest under § 406(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1106 (a). The Plan has filed a protective cross-appeal challenging the district court’s rejection of its claim that the Operating Agreement was an imprudent transaction that violated § 404(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary for this decision.

Sardagna argues that the district court erred in ruling that the statute of limitations was not violated. We review .the statute of limitations issue de novo. Pierce County Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Health Trust v. Elks Lodge, B.P.O.E. No. U450, 827 F.2d 1324, 1328 (9th Cir.1987). The three-year statute of limitations started to run on September 1, 1998, when the Plan hired plaintiff CB Richard Ellis, the fiduciary plaintiff in this case, as investment manager of the Plan. 29 U.S.C. §…

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.