Erpelding
Erpelding v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ronald and Barbara Erpelding and their company, Ron & Sons’ Trucking, Inc. (“Appellants” or “Ron and Sons”), appeal the order of the Southern District of California dismissing their claims against Appellee Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust Company (“Appellee” or “Trustar”). *731 The District Court found that Trustar was an ERISA fiduciary and therefore Ron and Sons’ state law claims against Trustar were preempted. Because we find that the complaint does not establish that Trustar was an ERISA fiduciary, we conclude that the District Court’s order dismissing the action was in error.
Under ERISA, a person or entity is considered a fiduciary:
29 U.S.C. § 1002 (21)(A).
This is a functional test that turns on the activity, rather than the title, of the person or entity in question. See CSA 1,01 (K) Plan v. Pension Prof'ls, Inc., 195 F.3d 1135 , 1138 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that actions and not title determine ERISA fiduciary status); IT Corp. v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 107 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1997); McMorgan & Co. v. First Cal. Mortgage Co., 916 F.Supp. 966, 970 (N.D.Cal.1995) (“The exercise of discretionary authority may confer fiduciary status, regardless of…
Dissenting Opinion
Rymer, J.
dissenting.
I would affirm the district court because the complaint alleges that Trustar formed the Plan, helped design the Plan’s benefit formula, was a fiduciary with respect to terminating the Plan, gave advice for a fee, had responsibility for proceeding with all necessary measures to ensure the Plan would be terminated and distributions would be made prior to the year ending October 31, 2000, and implemented the decision to terminate the Plan. As the earmarks of an ERISA fiduciary are averred and the discretionary authority to design and implement the Plan and its termination is implicit in the responsibility to “proceed with all necessary measures,” the court could conclude that Ron and Sons’s state law claims bear on an ERISA regulated relationship and so are preempted. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (21)(A); see also, e.g., New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 661 , 115 S.Ct. 1671 , 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995) (noting that areas with which ERISA is expressly concerned include reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary responsibility) (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 , 98 & n. 19, 103 S.Ct. 2890 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490…