Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

MEMORANDUM ***

This matter is before us for the second time, following our limited remand to the district court to provide reasons for rejecting the defendants’ laches argument. In our previous Memorandum, we otherwise affirmed the district court’s July 27, 2005 decision denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds and dismissing state claims as preempted by ERISA. We also affirmed the district court’s April 11, 2006 decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on his claim for benefits under ERISA. We also affirmed the district court’s refusal to award statutory penalties. Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., et al., 260 Fed.Appx. 994 (9th Cir.2007).

On remand, the district court held that the defendants had waived their laches *67 argument by not raising it until summary judgment, and that the argument failed on the merits. We agree with the holding on the merits and therefore affirm.

Neis Johnson claims he is entitled to pension benefits for his years of employment prior to a 1947 break in service. The pension plan at issue is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Georgia-Pacific Corporation argues…