Desai
Desai v. Continental Plastic Containers Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiff-Appellant Sharmista Desai (“Desai”) filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Continental Plastic Containers, Inc. Basic Non-Contributory Hourly Pension Plan (“the Plan”) denied her application for pension benefits in violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (b)(2)(A) (2000). The district court granted the Plan’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and Desai appealed.
We review the district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo. United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). The parties agree that because the Plan expressly grants the administrator discretion to interpret its terms, we review the interpretation for abuse of discretion. Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 9 F.3d 1469 , 1471 (9th Cir.1993).
At the time of Desai’s termination in 1983, Continental’s Complex Manager for Human Resources, J.S. Koczeniak, informed Desai in writing that she would be eligible for retirement benefits under the Plan. When she eventually retired in 1999 and sought to collect her pension, the Plan claimed that Koczeniak’s interpretation of the Plan was in error and that she was not eligible for benefits.