901 F.2d 404, *; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766, **;
134
L.R.R.M. 2311; 115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,090
FRANK LANDRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AIR LINE
PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL AFL-CIO, TACA AIRLINES, S.A. and CHARLES J.
HUTTINGER, Defendant-Appellees
No. 88-3363
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
901 F.2d 404; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766; 134 L.R.R.M. 2311;
115 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,090
January 31, 1990
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]
As Amended.
PRIOR HISTORY:
Appeal from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No.
CA-86-3196-K-(3), George
Arceneaux, Jr., Judge. Original Opinion of January 31, 1990, Previously Reported
at 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1107.
CORE TERMS: pilot,
fiduciary, summary judgment, discovery, retirement plan, fiduciary duties,
beneficiary, predicate, statute of limitations, negotiation, duty, fiduciary
duty, continuity, depositions, termination, mail fraud, collective bargaining
agreement, pension benefits, plan administrator, relocation, matter of law,
racketeering, retirement benefits, pattern of racketeering activity, protective
order, pension plan, injunction, labor law, omission, movant
COUNSEL: Richard A. Machen, Slidell, Louisiana,
R. Neal Wilkinson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Tom W. Thornhill, Slidell, Louisiana,
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
For Airline & Hutt, Robert H. Urann,
Metairie, Louisiana, Stephen B. Moldof, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, Michael
[**2] L. Winston, New York, New York.
For
Fringe Fringe: Jerry J. Blouin, New Orleans, Louisiana.
For TACA: John
B. Waldrip, New Orleans, Louisiana, Joseph Z. Fleming, Miami, Florida.
JUDGES: Brown, Johnson and
Davis, Circuit Judges.
OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM
OPINION: [*407]
JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge:
Several airline pilots brought this action
against their former employer, union, union representative, and the
administrator of their pension plan. The pilots alleged violations of labor law,
ERISA, and RICO. Granting motions for summary judgment, the Court held: (i) the
statute of limitations barred the labor law claims; (ii) ERISA imposed no
fiduciary duties on the defendants; and (iii) the pilots failed to meet the
necessary elements of a RICO claim. The Court also granted a protective order
preventing further discovery of the defendants. On appeal, we affirm the lower
court's holding with respect to the statute of limitations and the protective
order. However, we find that summary judgment was improper on the ERISA and RICO
claims. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court the ERISA and RICO
claims.
I. The Facts
A. History of Relations
between TACA and ALPA [**3]
1.
If at first you don't succeed . . .
TACA International Airlines,
S.A. (TACA), incorporated under the laws of El Salvador, operates in Central
America and the United States. From 1949 until 1985, all TACA pilots were based
in New Orleans, Louisiana. In 1968, the Airline Pilots Association,
International, AFL-CIO (ALPA), was certified as the collective bargaining
representative for all pilots employed by TACA, and thereafter negotiated
numerous collective bargaining agreements with TACA.
The relevant
history of this case begins over two decades ago. In 1969, shortly after TACA
entered into its first agreement with ALPA, the Republic of El Salvador
requested that TACA relocate its pilot base from New Orleans to El Salvador.
When TACA attempted to comply with the request of the Salvadoran government,
ALPA sought and obtained an injunction, maintaining that if the relocation
occurred, ALPA could no longer, under Salvadoran law, represent the pilots. A
bar of representation would have abrogated the recently-entered collective
bargaining agreement between ALPA and TACA. This Court affirmed the district
court injunction. Ruby
v. TACA International Airlines, S.A., 439 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir.1971).
[**4]
2. . . . try, try, again .
. .
In October of 1979, TACA and ALPA entered into a collective
bargaining agreement, effective January 1, 1980 and amendable on December 31,
1983 (the 1980 collective bargaining agreement). In October, 1983, ALPA and TACA
commenced negotiations to amend and continue the 1980 collective bargaining
agreement.
However, on December 20, 1983, the Republic of El Salvador
adopted a new Constitution; Article 110, § 4 of that constitution provided that
Salvadoran public service [*408] companies must
have their work center and base of operations in El Salvador. Airline
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. TACA, Int'l Airlines, S.A., 748 F.2d 965, 968 (5th
Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471
U.S. 1100, 105 S. Ct. 2324, 85 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1985). As a result, while in
the midst of negotiations, TACA announced its intention to immediately relocate
its pilot base from New Orleans to El Salvador, to unilaterally terminate the
existing agreement and impose new terms and conditions of employment on its
pilot employees, and to withdraw its recognition of ALPA. R. 503. Pilots were
given until December 31, 1983 to accept the new terms or lose their [**5] employment with TACA. Meanwhile, because of the
potential that the pilots would not move, TACA began advertising for new pilots.
ALPA filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, seeking injunctive relief against TACA. Judge Feldman
issued a permanent injunction prohibiting TACA from relocating the pilot base,
unilaterally changing the terms of employment, recruiting replacement pilots,
and interfering with the pilots' choice of ALPA as their bargaining agent.
This court affirmed the injunction, but stated
we neither hold nor suggest that TACA may not relocate its
pilot base. We hold only that TACA must relocate its pilot base and effect the
other intended steps in accordance with the substantive laws and procedures
set forth in the Railway Labor Act and other relevant domestic
laws.
Id.,
at 972.
3. . . . until you do
Between 1984 and
1985, TACA and ALPA continued negotiations under the auspices of the National
Mediation Board (NMB). On July 24, 1985, TACA and ALPA reached an agreement
entitled "Pilots' Agreement," which superseded the 1980 collective bargaining
agreement under which the [**6] parties had been
operating. The "Pilots' Agreement" provided that ALPA would not oppose TACA's
relocation of its pilot base to El Salvador after August 31, 1985. All pilots on
the seniority list as of June 30, 1985 could elect either: (i) to receive
severance pay ($ 1,200.00 to each pilot for each full year of service and
pro rata amounts for partial years, with length of service calculated
through August 31, 1985), and other benefits (passes and insurance), or (ii) to
continue their employment as TACA pilots, based in El Salvador. R. 504.
On July 24, 1985, Mr. Charles J. Huttinger, a TACA pilot who represented
ALPA in the negotiations with TACA, sent a letter to all TACA pilots stating
that "The Association has reached a tentative agreement (subject to
ratification) with TACA. . . . The Company has agreed to a total package which
we believe justifies your support."
Some of the pilots allegedly
understood the July 24, 1985 letter to mean that the agreement would not be
final until it was ratified by the individual pilots. However, on August 3,
1985, a representative of TACA sent a memorandum to all TACA pilots, informing
them that "an agreement [has been] reached by which [**7] TACA will move its pilots base to El Salvador
effective September 1, 1985." The memorandum further stated that "the decision
to continue working for the company or retire must be made by August 15, 1985,
at the latest." Each of the named plaintiffs, except Gary Zyriek, elected to
take severance pay. Mr. Zyriek had changed jobs and was flying for United
Airlines by June 30, 1985, the date of eligibility for severance payments.
The July 24, 1985 "Pilots' Agreement" further provided that TACA's
obligation to contribute to the pilots' retirement fund would cease as of August
31, 1985. Although the parties dispute the effective date of the retirement plan
(see infra), it was formally implemented on April 18, 1985. Fringe
Benefit Administrators (FBA) was named as the plan administrator and the First
National Bank of Covington was the plan trustee.
On December 17, 1985,
TACA and ALPA entered into a final "settlement agreement" [*409] which resolved all claims arising out of the July
24, 1985, "Pilots' Agreement." Among other things, the agreement provided that
"ALPA agrees and acknowledges that TACA has no further obligations to the
individuals who selected the severance option [**8] under the 'Pilots' Agreement'. . . . concerning
insurance coverage or benefits of any kind, or premium payments of any kind."
B. Procedural History
In the original Complaint, the
pilots n1 asserted that the July 24, 1985 "Pilots' Agreement" was negotiated and
executed in breach of ALPA's duty of fair representation (DFR) to the TACA
pilots and TACA's prior collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, in violation
of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45
U.S.C. §§ 151-88, and the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 141-87. Pilots sought approximately $ 30 million in damages. R.
1-18. Pilots did not file their Complaint until July 23, 1986. R. 1.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n1 There were fifteen plaintiff pilots at the trial court: Frank
Landry, Jules Corona, Charles South, Robert A. Massa, Don Johnson, Thomas
Brignac, T.Q. Howard, Robert Lukenbill, Bert Haffner, Walter Keller, Joe Haas,
Gary Zyriek, Don Jenkins, Emile Cerisier, and M. Letona. The same pilots are
appellants on appeal, except for Thomas Brignac, Robert Lukenbill, Bert Haffner,
and Gary Zyriek, who have dropped out of the case.
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**9]
Pilots alleged that ALPA agreed to enter
into the July 24, 1985 agreement as a result of TACA's threat to sue ALPA
because some of the pilots purportedly sabotaged TACA property at ALPA's
direction. The pilots characterized this conduct as a breach of the duty of fair
representation by ALPA. In addition, the pilots have asserted that Mr. Huttinger
was unqualified to represent ALPA in the negotiation of the "Pilots' Agreement."
Huttinger had been placed on "sick" status by TACA, and according to the pilots,
under the Constitution and By-Laws of ALPA, a pilot classified as "sick" was not
permitted to hold an office within the union.
Moreover, the pilots have
filed the affadavit of Emile Cerisier, one of the plaintiffs. Mr. Cerisier
states that Mr. G.M. Padgett was a TACA pilot who was a member of the ALPA
negotiation team that arranged the relocation of the pilot base to El Salvador.
The pilots claim that Mr. Padgett should not have been allowed on the team
because he had been suspended by TACA for sabotaging TACA equipment.
The
Original Complaint also alleged that ALPA, TACA, and FBA violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001 [**10] -1461. The pilots
claim that ALPA, TACA, and FBA breached fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA in the
administration and implementation of the Plan. More specifically, the pilots
allege that the defendants: (i) delayed Plan implementation for three years;
(ii) refused to disclose Plan details despite repeated requests; (iii) failed to
disclose various information about the fund's location, amount, etc.; and (iv)
colluded among each other to allow Huttinger to illegitimately receive
retirement benefits.
FBA filed an answer on October 22, 1986. R. 261.
ALPA and TACA filed motions to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment,
contending that the DFR/breach of contract claim was barred by the applicable
six-month statute of limitations and that the pilots had failed to state a claim
for relief under ERISA. R. 33-51, 240-60. On January 13, 1987, the pilots
noticed the depositions of Charles Huttinger and First National Bank, eventually
postponed at the request of the defendants. R. 383-86.
On February 10,
1987, while those motions were pending, the pilots asked the District Court to
stay all proceedings and to transfer the case for consolidation with an action
filed by ALPA in 1983, [**11] Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. TACA Int'l Airlines, S.A., Civ. No. 83-6238
(E.D.La.), aff'd, 748
F.2d 965 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471
U.S. 1100, 105 S. Ct. 2324, 85 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1985), for the expressed
purpose of seeking an adjudication that TACA was in contempt of an injunction
issued to ALPA in the 1983 case. R. 408-13. Judge Feldman, who had presided over
the earlier action, denied pilots' motion, explaining that [*410] "this case had been closed for several years, and
this Court no longer has any jurisdiction in this matter." Supplemental Record
on Appeal, Minute Entry, (Feldman, J.), March 13, 1987. By subsequent Order, the
Court below denied pilots' motion to transfer, determining, in consultation with
Judge Feldman, "that the issues presented in this matter [the case sub
judice] are not sufficiently similar to warrant transfer." R. 427.
On March 11, 1987, the pilots filed an amended and supplemental
Complaint, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, and requesting nearly $ 100 million in damages. R.
493-99. Huttinger was added [**12] as a
defendant in the Amended Complaint, which incorporated all of the allegations in
the original Complaint.
By Opinion and Order dated April 24, 1987, the
District Court granted the ALPA and TACA motions directed at the Original
Complaint, holding, inter alia, that the pilots had failed to
demonstrate that "TACA or ALPA should be held liable as a 'fiduciary' within the
meaning of ERISA and, to the extent that the pilots intend to assert a 'hybrid'
claim under the RLA, n2 it is clearly barred by the six-month [statute] of
limitations." R. 511.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 See infra.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
In May, 1987, TACA, ALPA, and Huttinger responded to the
RICO claim in the Amended Complaint by filing motions to dismiss or
alternatively, for summary judgment. R. 516-83; 584-608. The Court denied the
motions without prejudice and ordered the pilots, in accordance with a newly
adopted Standing Order, to file a RICO Case Statement (RICO St.) n3 R. 759-62.
Pursuant to express leave of the Court, R. 758, ALPA, Huttinger, and TACA
renewed their [**13] dispositive motions, R.
855-974, 798-854, following the filing of pilots' RICO St. R. 764-90.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n3 See Appendix A; see also Elliott
v. Foufas, 867 F.2d 877, 880 (5th Cir.1989).
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On
November 18, 1987, the defendants moved for protective orders to quash
depositions of TACA, Huttinger, and FBA that the pilots had noticed for October.
R. 1007. The protective order was granted on December 11, 1987. R. 1104.
On December 14, 1987, the pilots filed a motion for the Court to
reconsider the application of tolling principles to the dismissal of their DFR
claims, contending that the Court had "overlooked the doctrine of equitable
tolling." R. 1109. A request by the pilots to file a supplemental brief in
support of their motion to reconsider was disallowed. On February 29, 1988, the
Court denied the pilots' motion for reconsideration and ordered the pilots to
respond to the defendants' request for sanctions.
By Opinion and Order
dated March 17, 1988, the District Court granted summary judgment on [**14] the RICO claim. R. 1295-1311. Judgments pursuant
to F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) in favor of ALPA and TACA were entered on April 28, 1988, R.
1315, and, as to Huttinger, on May 4, 1988. R. 1316. Eleven of the fifteen
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 27, 1988.
The following
issues are presented on appeal: (i) Did the District Court apply the appropriate
statute of limitations to the pilots' labor law claims, and did it give adequate
consideration to when the limitations period began to run? (ii) Did the lower
court properly find no ERISA plan was established until the spring of 1985, and
that neither ALPA, Huttinger, nor TACA were fiduciaries under ERISA? (iii) Did
the court below err in ruling against the pilots' RICO claims? (iv) Did the
trial judge abuse his discretion in quashing discovery depositions the pilots
had noticed for hearing?
II. Statute of Limitations
In
their Original Complaint, pilots alleged that ALPA breached its duty of fair
representation (DFR), implied under the RLA. They also alleged that TACA was a
party to the DFR breach. The breach arose during the process of negotiating a
new collective bargaining agreement -- which ultimately resulted in the removal
[**15] of [*411] the TACA pilot base to El Salvador and the
severance of all of the plaintiffs to this action. The trial court found that by
its allegations, pilots brought a "hybrid" claim. n4 Such claims are subject to
a six month statute of limitations. n5 The complaint was filed August 25, 1986,
but the cause of action accrued, at the latest, on December 17, 1985 when the
settlement agreement was signed. Thus the pilots' labor law claims were held
time barred.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n4 In the original "hybrid" action, an
employee brought a claim against his employer under § 301 of the NLRA for breach
of the collective bargaining agreement and against his union for breach of the
duty of fair representation implied under the NLRA. The two actions are
inextricably intertwined, for in order to prevail on one, the employee must
prevail on both. See DelCostello
v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65, 103 S. Ct. 2281,
2290-91, 76 L. Ed. 2d 476, 489 (1983). As we shall develop, infra,
this original meaning has been expanded to apply to the type of claim brought
here.
n5 DelCostello
v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S. Ct. 2281, 76 L.
Ed. 2d 476 (1983). This limitation period is imported from § 10(b) of the
NLRA and applies both to the cause of action against the union and to the one
against the employee. The DelCostello court chose to apply this
analogous federal statute of limitations rather than borrow from state law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - [**16]
Pilots challenge
this ruling on several grounds. They assert that (1) this is not a
DelCostello "hybrid" action; (2) more appropriate limitations periods
may be found by resort to Louisiana's one year statute of limitations for tort
law and ten year statute of limitations for contract law; (3) the running of the
statute should have been tolled until defendants' fraud and collusion was
discovered by pilots; (4) defendants should have been required to honor the
judgment that forbid their relocation unless it was accomplished in compliance
with the RLA; (5) any decertification of ALPA as the employees' collective
bargaining agent should have been carried out by the National Mediation Board.
We find that dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 56(c) was warranted because it
was clear from the face of the complaint and the declarations submitted that no
material facts were in dispute and that defendants were entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on the undisputed facts. n6 We agree with the trial court that
DelCostello states the appropriate limitations period and that pilots'
labor law claims were time-barred.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n6 "The judgment
sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." F.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**17]
Pilots argue that
DelCostello does not apply for two reasons. First, this case implicates
the RLA, while DelCostello dealt with a violation of § 301 of the NLRA.
Second, DelCostello arose in the context of a grievance proceeding
under an existing collective bargaining agreement. In the case sub
judice by contrast, the dispute arose out of the process of negotiating a
collective bargaining agreement. There was no grievance procedure in place, so a
time bar on the federal cause of action would preclude pilots from all avenues
of relief.
The Fifth Circuit has held that when a claim alleges unfair
representation, it is subject to DelCostello's six month limitations period even
when it arises under the RLA, rather than the NLRA as was the case in
DelCostello. n7 The claim also need not be a "classic" hybrid claim.
The six month limitation period is applicable whenever there is a DFR claim. n8
Pilots have clearly alleged a breach of the duty of fair representation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n7 Brock
v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 525-26 (5th Cir.1985) (The
"six-month statute of limitations in § 10(b) of the [NLRA] controls hybrid
actions brought under the [RLA]. Hybrid claims under either act originate from
an identical implied duty of fair representation and involve a similar balancing
of competing interests."); see also Coyle
v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 838 F.2d 1404, 1405 (5th
Cir.1988). [**18]
n8 Richardson
v. United Steelworkers of America, 864 F.2d 1162, 1167 (5th Cir.1989);
see also Degan
v. Ford Motor Co., 869 F.2d 889, 892-93 (5th Cir.1989).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
In addition, at least one other circuit has held explicitly that the
limitations period should apply "equally to disputes arising [*412] from the process of negotiation and to those
arising from actions under the agreement resulting from the negotiations." n9 We
agree that the rationale of DelCostello applies to the facts before us
now. Thus pilots' labor law claims are subject to a six month statute of
limitations.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 United
Independent Flight Officers v. United Air Lines, 756 F.2d 1262, 1271 (7th
Cir.1985).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In support of their second argument,
pilots cite United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, n10 for the
proposition that state law provides the appropriate limitations period.
Mitchell held [**19] that a state
statute of limitations for vacation of an arbitration award rather than for
breach of contract governed a similar suit. Two questions were left unanswered
in Mitchell, however: (i) what statute of limitations should govern the
action against the union (only the action against the employer was subject to
the arbitration statute) and (ii) whether the statute of limitations should be
borrowed from federal law, namely NLRA § 10(b), 29
U.S.C. § 160(b), rather than from state law. DelCostello resolved
these unanswered questions holding that it was indeed appropriate to borrow from
federal law and apply the six month statute of limitations from § 10(b). That
limitations period applies to the claims against the employer and those against
the union. n11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n10 451
U.S. 56, 101 S. Ct. 1559, 67 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1981).
n11 DelCostello,
462 U.S. at 154-55, 103 S. Ct. at 2285-86, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 482-83.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
In the pilots' third challenge to the trial [**20] court's ruling, they assert that the trial court
should have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to find that pilots'
claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. Pilots argue that they
didn't know of the fraud and collusion perpetrated upon them until less than six
months before they filed suit. They do not, however, detail the fraud and
collusion which kept this knowledge from them or what and how they found out
about it.
Pilots begin by arguing that where fraud and collusion have
been alleged, DelCostello is inapplicable and a two year statute of
limitations set forth in the RLA applies. n12 Brock v. Republic Airlines,
Inc., n13 the only case pilots cite for this proposition, does not go
nearly as far as pilots would take it. The RLA's statute of limitations applies
only to actions arising under its own provisions; pilots have not alleged a
violation of those provisions. The "fraud and collusion" Brock alleged denied
him a fair hearing before the National Railroad Adjustment Board which issued
the order Brock appealed. n14 Pilots do not appeal an Adjustment Board order,
nor do they allege fraud and collusion in connection with such an order. In
short, their [**21] claims fall entirely outside
the parameters of Brock.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n12 45
U.S.C. § 153 (First) (r), the section pilots claim is applicable, provides:
All actions at law based upon the provisions of this section shall
be begun within two years from the time the cause of action accrues under the
award of the division of the Adjustment Board, and not after.
n13 776
F.2d 523, 526-27 (5th Cir.1985).
n14 Id. Such a cause of
action is specifically provided for in 45
U.S.C. § 153 (First) (p) and therefore subject to the two year limitation
period established in 45
U.S.C. § 153 (First) (r).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Even though
DelCostello does apply, and not Brock's two year limitations period,
pilots nevertheless argue that they meet the six month statute of limitations.
Eight months after the DFR claim was dismissed, pilots moved for reconsideration
of the dismissal arguing that the trial court had "apparently overlooked the
doctrine [**22] of equitable tolling in its
ruling." n15 Pilots argued that the statute should have been tolled until a time
less than six months before they filed suit because the defendants had
fraudulently concealed the facts that gave rise to their cause of action. The
trial court found that their motion had no merit because the issue was not
adequately raised when the claims were initially disposed of and pilots failed
to show a proper basis for the exercise of equitable tolling. We agree.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n15 R. 1110.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Allegations of
fraudulent concealment do not free plaintiffs of their obligation to [*413] exercise reasonable diligence to discover frauds
perpetrated against them once they are on notice that such acts might have
occurred. n16 Plaintiffs' own affidavits submitted before the summary judgment
and with the motion for reconsideration show they were on "inquiry notice" if
not actual notice of the acts that form the basis of their DFR claim for much
longer than six months before they filed suit.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n16 Jensen
v. Snellings, 841 F.2d 600, 607 (5th Cir.1988), reh'g granted in
part (unpublished opinion).
An act of concealment should not relieve the plaintiff of his
duty to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the fraud. . . . Concealment
by the defendant is only a factor to be considered in determining when the
plaintiff should have discovered the fraud.
The requirement of
diligent inquiry imposes an affirmative duty upon the potential plaintiff. . .
. A plaintiff who has learned of facts which would cause a reasonable person
to inquire further must proceed with a reasonable and diligent investigation,
and is charged with the knowledge of all facts such an investigation would
have disclosed. (Citations omitted).
Although
Jensen dealt with alleged securities fraud, its reasoning extends to
this situation. Like investors, employees "are not free to ignore storm
warnings" that would alert a reasonable employee to the possibility of fraud.
Id.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**23]
For
example, plaintiffs allege that Huttinger misrepresented that the Pilots'
Agreement would be subject to ratification in July 1985; pilots knew by August
3, 1985 that the agreement was to be immediately implemented without
ratification. n17 Haffner, one of the pilots, was aware in July or August 1985
that Huttinger and ALPA had no alternative but to take the buyout. ALPA would
not support the pilots through a strike because (i) ALPA was financially
depleted and could not afford to do so and (ii) ALPA had been threatened with
suit by TACA and ALPA's legal department felt they would lose. n18 In the spring
of 1985, while negotiations were ongoing, Zyriek -- another pilot -- learned
from a vice president of TACA that Huttinger was not qualified to represent the
pilots and that Huttinger and Padgett were lying to the pilots about the course
of the negotiations. n19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n17 See Amended
Complaint at paras. 41-42, R. 495-96; ALPA's Statement of Material Facts Not in
Dispute at para. 10, R. 571 and Pilots' Controverted Statements at para. 10, R.
727.
n18 Declaration of Bert Haffner, R. 1179-1181. [**24]
n19 See Declaration of Gary
Zyriek, R. 1196-98.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At least some of the pilots
were informed about the events taking place and potential problems with the
negotiations. Many of the pilots also declared that they were aware of and asked
by ALPA to participate in sabotage of TACA equipment. This alone should have put
them on notice that things were not as they should be. Finally, First
Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. of Miami v. Mortgage Corp. of the South n20
holds that ignorance of one aspect of an alleged fraud, where many other facts
were known, is insufficient to delay the running of the statute.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n20 650
F.2d 1376, 1378-79 (5th Cir.Unit B 1981).
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Given these
allegations, there is no question that the pilots were on inquiry notice of the
labor law claims they raised in this suit in the spring or summer of 1985.
Pilots have not alleged or provided any proof which would tend to show that
defendants [**25] actively concealed their
conduct or that the pilots exercised reasonable diligence, from that time until
less than six months before they filed suit, in order to learn of their legal
claims. n21 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant
reconsideration. No fact issues regarding the pilots' exercise of diligence in
finding the grounds of their complaint were presented for resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n21 United
Klans of America v. McGovern, 621 F.2d 152, 153 (5th Cir.1980):
Fraudulent concealment tolls the statute of limitations. To
rely on this tolling doctrine, "plaintiff must show that the defendants
concealed the conduct complained of, and that he failed, despite the exercise
of due diligence on his part, to discover the facts that form the basis of his
claim."
Citing In
re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 600 F.2d 1148, 1169 (5th
Cir.1979).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pilots' fourth argument measures the
actions of ALPA and TACA against an injunction. In 1983, El Salvador [**26] adopted a new Constitution which required
Salvadoran public service companies to have their [*414] bases in El Salvador. Pursuant to that new
requirement, TACA attempted to move its pilots base to San Salvador. ALPA
immediately sought an injunction against the move which was granted by the
district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit. n22 The injunction did not
prevent TACA from relocating its base. It simply provided that "TACA must
relocate its pilot base, and effect the other intended steps in accordance with
the substantive law and procedures set forth in the Railway Labor Act and other
relevant domestic laws." n23 The pilots contend that TACA effected its move in
violation of the RLA and thus is in violation of the injunction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n22 See Airline
Pilots Ass'n International, AFL-CIO v. TACA International Airlines, S.A.,
748 F.2d 965 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471
U.S. 1100, 105 S. Ct. 2324, 85 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1985).
n23 Id.
at 972.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pilots [**27]
did not raise this issue until February 1987 -- long after they had filed this
action. We find that the courts below acted properly in refusing to reopen that
case. The issues involved in the old case and the current one are not
substantially similar and the parties are different -- only TACA was bound by
the injunction. A transfer or consolidation to resolve this issue would have
complicated the case -- not simplified it.
Pilots' final argument
against the operation of DelCostello and the bar of the six month
statute of limitations is to classify the actions of ALPA and TACA as an
improper attempt to decertify ALPA as the bargaining agent for the pilots. In
this guise, pilots argue that the rationale of DelCostello is
inappropriate. n24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n24 Pilots do not explain why they
believe this characterization makes DelCostello inapplicable, nor do
they state which statute of limitations then becomes applicable or why. We
respond to pilots' arguments without the need to answer these questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Disputes [**28] which
involve the determination of the certified representative of airline employees
in collective bargaining and contract administration are classified by the RLA
as "representation" disputes. Such disputes are governed by Section 2, Ninth of
the RLA, n25 which provides that "it is the duty of the [National Mediation]
Board to investigate any dispute as to who is the collective bargaining
representative of employees and to certify the organization properly
designated." n26 We have no jurisdiction over this claim.
The Act commits disputes involving a determination of who is
to represent airline employees in collective bargaining to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. A court may not entertain an
action involving such a dispute even if it arises in the context of otherwise
justiciable claims. n27
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n25 45
U.S.C. § 152, Ninth.
n26 International
Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Texas
International Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 159 (5th Cir.1983).
n27 Id.
at 161 (citations omitted).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**29]
In conclusion, we hold that pilots' labor
law claims were time barred. A straightforward application of
DelCostello, as it has evolved, compels this result. The remainder of
pilots' arguments -- equitable tolling, enforcement of a prior injunction, and
wrongful decertification of ALPA -- avail them not at all.
III.
Erisa Claims
A. Did a "Plan" Exist Before April 18, 1985?
The fiduciary obligations created by Title I of ERISA apply only to
established "plans." Section 401(a), 29
U.S.C. § 1101(a) (fiduciary responsibilities apply to employee benefit
plans); Section 4(a), 29
U.S.C. § 1003(a) ("this subchapter shall apply to any employee benefit
plan if it is established or maintained" by an employer, employee
organization, or both) (emphasis added). Decisions as to whether or when to
establish a plan, or how to design a plan, are not subject to any ERISA
fiduciary obligation. n28 Nor does any fiduciary obligation [*415] arise during the negotiation or execution of an
agreement regarding future pension benefits. n29 Thus, we must determine when
the retirement plan for the TACA pilots went into effect, [**30] so that we can decide when any fiduciary duties
may have been created.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n28 See UMWA
Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U.S. 562, 573-76, 102 S. Ct.
1226, 1232-34, 71 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1982); NLRB
v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322, 336-38, 101 S. Ct. 2789, 2797-98, 69 L. Ed.
2d 672 (1981); United
Independent Flight Officers, Inc. (UIFO-I), 756 F.2d 1262, 1266-69; Moore
v. Reynolds Metal Co. Retirement Program, 740 F.2d 454, 456 (6th
Cir.1984) cert. denied, 469
U.S. 1109, 105 S. Ct. 786, 83 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1985).
n29 UIFO-I,
756 F.2d at 1268; United
Independent Flight Officers, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 756 F.2d 1274,
1280 (7th Cir.1985); Sutton
v. Weirton Steel Division of National Steel Corp., 567 F. Supp. 1184,
1201 (N.D.W.Va.), aff'd, 724
F.2d 406 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467
U.S. 1205, 104 S. Ct. 2387, 81 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1984).
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**31]
A pension plan subject to ERISA is one
which is "established or maintained by an employer or by an employee
organization or both" to provide retirement income to employees. Section
3(21)(A), 29
U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). ALPA cites Donovan
v. Dillingham, 688 F.2d 1367, 1373 (11th Cir.1982) (en banc),
for the proposition that a plan is "established" if, "from the surrounding
circumstances a reasonable person could ascertain" the following four elements:
"the intended [i] benefits, [ii] beneficiaries, [iii] source of financing, and
[iv] procedures for receiving benefits." n30
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n30
Accord Rasmussen
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F. Supp. 1497, 1500 (W.D.La.1987);
Ogden
v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 657 F. Supp. 328, 332 n. 3 (E.D.Mich.),
appeal dismissed, 829
F.2d 1126 (6th Cir.1987).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On February 2, 1982,
ALPA and TACA entered a "Letter of Agreement" in which they agreed to establish
a retirement plan [**32] for all TACA pilots.
However, a formal retirement plan was not implemented until April 18, 1985, when
TACA and ALPA executed the "TACA International Air Lines, S.A. Pilots'
Retirement Plan and Trust" (the Plan). The 1982 "Letter of Agreement" provided
that TACA would contribute $ 75,000 a year to a fund for the pilots' retirement
plus a variable amount depending upon the number of pilots listed on the
seniority list and whether a second B-737 aircraft was acquired. TACA's
obligation to make monthly contributions commenced on March 31, 1982. "Until
such time as the retirement plan for pilots has been established and
implemented," TACA's contributions were to be deposited in an institution named
by ALPA to be held in trust for the benefit of the retirement plan. The "Letter
of Agreement" was effective from February 25, 1982 to February 25, 1987, at
which time the agreement would be subject to renewal.
Since the 1982
agreement did not describe the intended benefits or procedure for receipt of
benefits, (although it does impart the source of financing and the
beneficiaries), ALPA argues that there was no plan until the signing of the 1985
retirement plan, which satisfies all four of [**33] the Dillingham requirements. n31
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n31 In Dillingham, an en banc Eleventh
Circuit held that employers and unions that subscribed to a group insurance
trust to furnish health insurance for employees or members, "established
employee welfare benefit plans" for purposes of deciding subject matter
jurisdiction over ERISA claims. Dillingham,
688 F.2d at 1374.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Our opinion in no way
undermines Dillingham's holding that a plan is established if "from the
surrounding circumstances a reasonable person can ascertain the intended
benefits, a class of beneficiaries, the source of financing, and procedures for
receiving benefits." Id.
at 1373. But in our case the issue is not if a plan has been
established, as in Dillingham, (because it is undisputed that an
ERISA-covered plan was eventually established), but rather when the
plan was established, taking into consideration the retroactivity provision in
the 1985 retirement plan. n32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n32 Of course, this
distinction can easily be collapsed by recognizing that a plan is normally
established when all of the requirements for a plan are met. But the
distinction is useful here because there is no contention that all of the
requirements for a plan were met by 1985.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**34]
ALPA also argues that the "circumstances"
surrounding the February, 1982 Letter of Agreement, as reflected in its terms,
prove that a plan was not established at that time. In particular, ALPA points
to the following language of the 1982 Agreement [*416] to support its claim that a pension plan was to
be created at some time in the future, and not by the 1982 Agreement itself:
"the specifics of the retirement plan for the pilots shall be
determined . . ."; TACA's contributions would be held in trust "until such
time as the retirement plan for pilots has been established and
implemented"; and "at that time the Company's required monthly
contributions shall be made to the retirement plan for pilots." (Emphasis added
by ALPA). n33
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n33 The more complete version of relevant
provisions of the 1982 Agreement are as follows:
LETTER OF AGREEMENT between TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A. and
THE AIR LINE PILOTS in the service of TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A. as
represented by THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL
THIS
LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions
of the Railway Labor Act as amended, by and between TACA INTERNATIONAL
AIRLINES, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and the AIR LINE
PILOTS in the services of TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A. as represented by
the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter referred to as the
"Association").
* * *
1. The Company will fund a retirement
plan for all pilots of the Company on the seniority list as of February 1,
1982 and any pilots added to the seniority list thereafter. The Company
contributions to the plan shall be as follows:
(a) $ 75,000 per year,
and
(b) an additional $ 25,000 per year when second B-737 aircraft is
acquired by (i.e. owned by or leased to) the Company, and
(c) an
additional $ 2,000 per year for each pilot on the seniority list in excess of
fifty (50) pilots and
(d) all obligations coming due under clauses
(a), (b), and (c) above will be paid by 12 payments 1/12 each such payments on
the last business calendar day of the month and each such payments prorated to
any increased obligation.
* * *
5. The specifics of the
retirement plan for pilots shall be determined by the Association provided
that the plan receives I.R.S. qualification and it treats all pilots in a fair
and equitable manner.
6. The Company contributions required by
Paragraphs 1 and 4 above shall be deposited in a trust account established in
an institution to be named by the Association to be held in trust by that
institution for the benefit of the retirement plan for pilots until such time
as the retirement plan for pilots has been established and implemented. At
that time the Company's required monthly contributions shall be made to the
retirement plan for pilots.
* * *
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**35]
We can ignore the implications of these
terms in the 1982 Letter of Agreement, however, because the April, 1985
retirement plan is explicitly retroactive to February, 1982. The very first
sentence of the 1985 retirement plan states that TACA "established a pension
plan for its Pilots" on February 1, 1982. n34 The retirement plan unambiguously
marks the plan's Effective Date as February 1, 1982. n35 All pilots employed on
the Effective Date are eligible to [*417]
participate in the Plan. n36 We will not interfere with the intent of the
parties to make the Plan effective on February 1, 1982. Thus, we instruct the
court on remand to accept as a matter of law that the Plan was in effect on
February 1, 1982.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n34 Article 1.1 of the TACA
INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A. PILOTS RETIREMENT PLAN AND TRUST provides:
Establishment and Name of the Plan and Trust -- TACA
INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A., (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), on
February 1, 1982, established a pension plan for its Pilots, which, as it may
be amended from time to time, is known as the TACA International Airlines,
S.A. Pilots Retirement Plan and Trust.
[**36]
n35 Article II -- (Definitions) defines
"Effective Date":
The term 'Effective Date' means February 1, 1982, the date on
which the provisions of this Plan are effective.
Other provisions support the view that the 1985 Plan is retroactive
to 1982. "Future Service" is defined as "a Pilots" aggregate period of
employment as a Pilot on or after February 1, 1982, including approved leaves of
absence and furloughs."
"Past Service" is defined as "a Pilot's
aggregate period of employment as a Pilot prior to February 1, 1982, including
approved leaves of absence and furloughs; provided, however, that a Pilot's
total Past Service which may be credited under the Plan shall not exceed twenty
(20) years."
"Plan Year" is defined as "the twelve (12) month period
commencing each January 1st and ending on the following December 31st. However,
the first Plan Year shall commence February 1, 1982 and end December 31, 1982."
4.1 Company Contributions -- The Company shall contribute
to the Plan such amounts as shall be required by the Letter of Agreement
between TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.A. and the AIR LINE PILOTS in the
service of TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S.S. as represented by THE AIR LINE
PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL in effect as of February 24, 1982 and as
subsequently amended or replaced, in accordance with the funding standards of
the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA.
[**37]
n36 However, one year of service is
required before eligibility:
3.1 Eligibility -- Each person who is employed as a Pilot
on the Effective Date and who, as of the Effective Date, has completed one
year of Past Service, shall participate in this Plan as of the Effective
Date.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B. Did TACA, ALPA and Huttinger Have Any
Fiduciary Duties Under the Retirement Plan?
Finding a need for
greater protection of employees covered by benefit plans, Congress enacted ERISA
in 1974. 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. In so doing, Congress sought to protect "the
interests of participants in private pension plans and their beneficiaries by
improving the equitable character and the soundness of such plans." 29
U.S.C. § 1001(c). n37 ERISA is therefore to be construed liberally to
safeguard the interests of fund participants and beneficiaries, and to preserve
the integrity of fund assets. This court has previously held that a liberal
construction of ERISA is in keeping with its remedial purposes. n38
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n37 Amending ERISA in 1986 with the Single-Employer Pension Plan
Amendments Act, (SEPPAA) Title XI of Pub.L.No. 99-272, tit. XI, 100 Stat. 237
(1986), Congress declared that the policy of the legislation was "to increase
the likelihood that participants and beneficiaries under single-employer defined
benefit pension plans will receive their full benefits." 29
U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(3) (Supp. VII 1989). Another declaration of policy under
SEPPAA was "to provide for the transfer of unfunded pension liabilities onto the
single-employer pension plan termination insurance system only in cases of
severe hardship." 29
U.S.C. § 1001b(c)(4) (Supp. VII 1989). [**38]
n38 American
Federation of Unions Local 102 Health & Welfare Fund v. Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States, 841 F.2d 658, 662 (5th
Cir.1988); Donovan
v. Mercer, 747 F.2d 304, 308 (5th Cir.1984).
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), provides that a "person" is a fiduciary only "to the
extent" he
(1) exercises discretionary control or authority over the
management of the Plan or the Plan's disposition of its assets, (2) renders
investment advice with regard to assets of the plan, or (3) has discretionary
authority or responsibility in the administration of the
plan."
In Sommers
Drug Stores, Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enterprises,
Inc., 793 F.2d 1456, 1459-60 (5th Cir.1986), reh'g den., 797
F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1986) cert. denied, 479
U.S. 1034, 107 S. Ct. 884, 93 L. Ed. 2d 837 (1987), we held that "the phrase
'to the extent' indicates that a person is a fiduciary [under ERISA] only with
respect to those aspects [**39] of the plan over
which he exercises authority or control." n39 The court below applied 3(21)(A)
and Sommers to conclude that neither TACA nor ALPA had any fiduciary
duties "because the 1985 retirement plan does not establish any power or
authority on behalf of TACA or ALPA, nor has any such authority or power been
demonstrated to have been exercised in fact." Landry v. ALPA, No.
86-3196, slip op. at p. 9 (E.D.La. Apr. 24, 1987) (mem.). A genuine issue of
material fact n40 existed as to whether TACA, ALPA, and Huttinger had any
fiduciary duties under ERISA that [*418] would
make them liable for the wrongs alleged in the pilots' complaint.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n39 Accord Gelardi
v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir.1985); Brandt
v. Grounds, 687 F.2d 895, 897 (7th Cir.1982); Holland
v. Bank of America, 673 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (S.D.Cal.1987).
n40
In a practice all too common in summary judgment decisions, the trial court made
no mention of the standard it was applying to reach its decision. Assuming that
the appropriate standard for a rule 56(c) motion was being tacitly applied, it
would behoove the district court to spell out that "no genuine issues as to any
material fact" could be found in support of plaintiff's case. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
See also, S. Childress & M. Davis, Standard of Review 310
(Wiley & Sons 1986). Such judicial pedagogy might reduce the frequency of
the same omission in briefs, motions, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**40]
Initially, we must emphasize that
fiduciary status is to be determined by looking at the actual authority
or power demonstrated, as well as the formal title and duties of the party at
issue. As described in the legislative history of ERISA, "the definition [of
'fiduciary'] includes persons who have authority and responsibility with respect
to the matter in question, regardless of their formal title." H.R.Conf.Rep. No.
93-1280, 93d Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. &
Admin.News 4639, 5038, 5103. Thus "fiduciary" should be defined not only by
reference to particular titles such as "plan administrator," "committee
chairman," or "sponsor," but also by considering the authority which a
particular person or entity exercises over the employee benefit plan at issue.
Donovan
v. Mercer, 747 F.2d at 308. See also Brink
v. DaLesio, 496 F. Supp. 1350, 1374-75 (D.Md.1980), rev'd in part
on other grounds, 667
F.2d 420 (4th Cir.1982); Leigh
v. Engle, 727 F.2d 113, 134 n. 33 (7th Cir.1984) ("we think ERISA
directs courts to look beyond . . . formal authority with respect to the plan .
. . to consider [**41] what real authority they
had over plan investments . . .").
The fact that someone is a fiduciary
under a retirement plan does not necessarily mean he is a fiduciary with respect
to all of the obligations under the plan. As we stressed in Sommers,
793 F.2d at 1459, the key language in the statutory definition is that a
person is a fiduciary "to the extent" he or she exercises control over the plan.
The Secretary of Labor explained this language in a bulletin interpreting ERISA,
which was published in the Code of Federal Regulations. In this bulletin, the
Secretary was asked the following question and gave the following response:
D-4 Q: In the case of a plan established and maintained by an
employer, are members of the board of directors of the employer fiduciaries
with respect to the plan?
A: Members of the board of directors of an
employer which maintains an employee benefit plan will be fiduciaries only to
the extent that they have responsibility for the functions described in
section 3(21)(A) of the Act. For example, the board of directors may be
responsible for the selection and retention of plan fiduciaries. In such a
case, members of the board of [**42] directors
exercise "discretionary authority or discretionary control respecting
management of such plan" and are, therefore, fiduciaries with respect to the
plan. However, their responsibility, and consequently, their liability, is
limited to the selection and retention of fiduciaries (apart from
co-fiduciary liability arising under circumstances described in section 405(a)
of the Act). In addition, if the directors are made named fiduciaries of the
plan, their liability may be limited pursuant to a procedure provided for in
the plan instrument for the allocation of fiduciary responsibilities among
named fiduciaries or for the designation of persons other than named
fiduciaries to carry out fiduciary responsibilities, as provided in section
405(c)(2).
The Internal Revenue Service notes that it would reach the
same answer to this question under section
4975(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
ERISA Interpretive Bulletin 75-8, 29
CFR § 2509.75-8 (1983) (emphasis supplied).
While the fiduciary duty
of a board of directors is not directly at issue in our case, the excerpted
dialogue from the bulletin illustrates the important parameters and limitations
of [**43] fiduciary responsibility. Thus, it
will be the task of the court on remand to determine precisely the extent, as a
factual matter, of actual fiduciary authority possessed or
exercised by ALPA, Huttinger, and TACA with respect to the wrongs
alleged by the pilots. The pilots' complaint maintains the following four wrongs
as a consequence of ERISA violations: n41
(i) delay in implementation of the retirement plan for three
years; (ii) failure and [*419] refusal to
discuss or disclose the Plan and its benefits to the Pilots upon repeated
requests; (iii) failure to disclose the amount of contributions by TACA, where
the funds were deposited, the type of investment account and interest rates
the invested funds received; and (iv) collusion between TACA, ALPA, and FBA to
allow Huttinger to receive benefits to which he was not legitimately entitled.
n42
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n41 Of course, to the
extent the district court allows the pilots to amend their complaint on remand
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 15, this list of alleged wrongs may be expanded.
n42 FBA is only an intervenor in this appeal. See infra. The
original Complaint alleged collusion between ALPA, FBA, and Huttinger. The
amended Complaint, however, implicates TACA in this collusion to improperly
provide Huttinger with funds.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**44]
1. Too Slow
Although, as
we determined above, the Plan was in effect in February, 1982, a detailed
retirement plan laying out the rights and obligations of the parties was not
implemented until over three years later. n43 In August of 1984, FBA was
contacted by ALPA about a possible contract to perform retirement plan services.
On October 30, 1984, a Plan Services Agreement was entered between ALPA and FBA
delineating specific services that FBA would provide under the Plan. In this
Plan Services Agreement, FBA agreed to take "all the steps required to make the
plan and trust operative."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n43 In an inquiry filed
with the U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Technical Assistance, Bert
Haffner, one of the plaintiff TACA pilots, complained of an "unusual time delay
and lapse from time of inception (1 Feb 82) to the time of issuance of plan
outline (16 April 85)." R. 1183.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
However, while FBA's
duties under the Plan are retroactive to February, 1982, any fiduciary
obligations undertaken by FBA in the Plan [**45]
Services Agreement do not begin until October 30, 1984. Thus, assuming without
deciding that FBA had a fiduciary duty to implement the Plan beginning on
October 30, 1984, there is still a disputed fact issue as to which party had the
responsibility to implement the Plan from February, 1982 until the signing of
the Plan Services Agreement. n44 If the trial court on remand discovers that
TACA, ALPA, or Huttinger formally possessed or actually assumed any fiduciary
duty with respect to implementing the Plan, then they will be potentially liable
for any damages resulting from the delay in implementation.
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n44 There is nothing in either the "Letter of Agreement" or the Plan
itself that imposes a fiduciary duty to implement the Plan.
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2. Didn't Show
The pilots' alleged that Charles
Huttinger refused to discuss or disclose the Plan and details about its benefits
despite repeated requests. Huttinger was appointed to the pilots' retirement
committee which, according to section 12.4 of the Plan, n45 was charged [**46] with interpreting and construing the Plan,
determining questions of eligibility and rights of participants and their
beneficiaries, and providing guidelines for the plan administrator as required
for the orderly and uniform administration of the Plan.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n45 12.4 Retirement Committee -- In order to assist in the
administration of the Plan, the Association shall appoint a Retirement Committee
to:
(a) interpret and construe the Plan;
(b) determine
questions of eligibility and of rights of Participants and their
Beneficiaries;
(c) provide guidelines for the Plan Administrator, as
required for the orderly and uniform administration of the
Plan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The affidavit of Bert Haffner, one of the
TACA pilots, declares that Huttinger "refused to supply [him] with a copy of the
retirement plan or tell [him] how to get one" despite repeated requests. R.
1179. In July or August of 1985, Haffner met with Huttinger at his home "in
order to obtain his help in applying for all benefits [that he] might be
eligible [**47] for." R. 1180. Haffner claimed
that he "did this in accordance with recommendations in ALPA manuals, to contact
the union chairman for help in applying for benefits." R. 1180.
Another
pilot, Jules Corona, declared that despite numerous requests, he "was never
given any information as to where the TACA contributed retirement funds were
held in Trust, nor when the plan was implemented, nor any of the ERISA required
disclosure information until after [*420] the
August 1, 1985 termination date of the plan." R. 303.
Huttinger clearly
assumed both a de facto and a de jure role in construing the
Plan and informing the pilots about its contents. Thus, we find as a matter of
law that Huttinger had a fiduciary duty to disclose information about the Plan
to the pilots when asked. Whether he breached that fiduciary duty must be
resolved on remand.
3. Couldn't Know
ALPA argues that
it is not a fiduciary with respect to the alleged failure to disclose
information about the Plan and its assets because the Plan charged the Plan
Administrator, FBA, with the day-to-day administration of the Plan, and
consistent with Section 101 of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1021, [**48] n46 with specific
responsibility for providing participants in the Plan with all information
required by law, including information and reports regarding the Plan and its
assets. n47
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
n46 § 1021. Duty of disclosure and reporting
(a) Summary plan description and information to be furnished to
participants and beneficiaries
The administrator of each employee
benefit plan shall cause to be furnished in accordance with section 1024(b) of
this title to each participant covered under the plan and to each beneficiary
who is receiving benefits under the plan --
(1) a summary plan description described in section
1022(a)(1) of this title; and
(2) the information described in section
1024(b)(3) and 1025(a) and (c) of this title.
n47 Formal responsibility to notify beneficiaries and participants
about the Plan falls on FBA.
9.8 Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of the Plan
Administrator -- The specific powers and responsibilities of the Plan
Administrator are to:
* * *
(c) Prepare and arrange for
delivery to Participants such summaries, descriptions, announcements and
reports as are required to be given to Participants under applicable laws and
regulations;
Our opinion decides nothing with respect
to FBA. See infra.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**49]
However, while the responsibility for
notifying beneficiaries and participants with Plan information formally fell
upon FBA, there are indications that FBA's actual authority over Plan matters
was (at least sometimes) subordinated to and dependent upon decisions by ALPA.
n48 For example, when the president of FBA, Richard Watson, was asked why
Huttinger was able to apply for and begin receiving benefits in November of
1985, but Haffner was not allowed to do the same, Watson reportedly explained
"that was the way ALPA had told him to do it." n49
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n48
The Plan plainly gives ALPA some fiduciary duties. Article 11.2 of the Plan
gives ALPA the authority to terminate the plan and the trust by an instrument in
writing signed by the president of ALPA or his designee for such purpose. R.
1389.
Article 11.2 provides:
Termination of Plan and Trust -- "This Plan and Trust may be
terminated by an instrument in writing signed by the President of the
Association or his designee for such purpose. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the Plan shall automatically terminate in the event of a complete
discontinuance of contributions by the Company. Upon the termination or
partial termination of the Plan, the rights of all affected Participants and
Beneficiaries to benefits accrued to the date of such termination, partial
termination, or discontinuance, to the extent funded as of such date, are
nonforfeitable."
ALPA has the sole authority and
control to remove and appoint the Trustee, the Plan Administrator and the
Investment Manager.
Article 9.5(a) provides: The Association is empowered to
appoint and remove the Trustee, the Plan Administrator and the Investment
Manager as it deems necessary for the proper administration of the Plan, to
assure that the Plan is being operated for the exclusive benefit of the
Participants and their Beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement, the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA.
Article 9.5(c) explicitly provides for the discretion of ALPA:
"The Association may in its discretion appoint an Investment
Manager to manage all or a designated portion of the assets of the Plan. In
such event, the Trustee shall follow the directives of the Investment Manager
in investing the assets of the Plan managed by the Investment Manager. While
there is an Investment Manager, the Association shall have no obligation under
this Plan with regard to the performance or non-performance of the duties
delegated to the Investment Manager."
[**50]
n49 Bert Haffner provided this information
about his conversation with Watson. R. 1181.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Even if the
actual fiduciary duty to disclose information about the Plan falls upon FBA, its
failure to notify Plan participants [*421] and
beneficiaries may not constitute a breach of that duty because ALPA and TACA
undertook an obligation to keep FBA informed about certain matters. n50 If ALPA
failed to do so, FBA may have been prevented from fulfilling its fiduciary duty
to notify the beneficiaries and participants.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n50 Sections
3 and 4 of the Plan Services Agreement provide in full:
3. Obtaining Information -- The Association agrees
to furnish information or data which FBA requests in order to perform services
under this Agreement within 90 days of the initial request or FBA will not be
held responsible for services under this Agreement. FBA reserves the right to
require that data be furnished over the signature of an authorized official of
the Association or the entity or representative providing the data on behalf
of the Association.
FBA reserves the right to reject information or data
which it considers unsuitable for processing. FBA's sole responsibility, in
this regard, shall be to forward questionnaires and forms as necessary to the
Association on a timely basis, enabling the Association to provide the
information needed.
4. Liability for Information -- The
Association shall provide complete, accurate and timely information, upon
which information FBA may rely fully. The Company and the Association shall
indemnify and hold FBA harmless for errors, omissions, and inaccurate or
incomplete reports completed, based on inaccurate, incomplete or untimely
information furnished by the Company and the Association.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - [**51]
Similarly, in the Plan, TACA
agrees to supply "full and timely information to the Plan Administrator on all
matters relating to the compensation of all Participants, their periods of
service, their retirement, death, disability or termination of employment, and
such other pertinent facts as [FBA] may require." n51 However, any fiduciary
duty on the part of TACA arising under § 9.9 (or any other section) of the Plan
is unenforceable, because TACA is neither a signatory nor a party to the Plan.
n52
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
n51 Plan § 9.9 provides:
9.9 Information From Company -- To enable the Plan
Administrator to perform his functions, the Company shall supply full and
timely information to the Plan Administrator on all matters relating to the
compensation of all Participants, their periods of service, their retirement,
death, disability, or termination of employment, and such other pertinent
facts as the Administrator may require; and the Administrator shall advise the
Trustee and the Investment Manager of such of the foregoing facts as may be
pertinent to their duties under the Plan. Subject to Section 9.2, all
fiduciaries may rely upon such information as is supplied by the Company and
shall have no duty or responsibility to verify such
information.
[**52]
n52 Merely because TACA was not a party to the Plan does not preclude a
finding that TACA was a fiduciary with respect to the Plan. If further facts
discovered on remand reveal that TACA undertook actual obligations to notify in
accordance with § 9.9 of the Plan, then TACA will be a fiduciary to that extent.
See Section II.B.4. Where'd the $ Go?
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The trial court on remand must determine the actual fiduciary duties
assumed by ALPA and TACA with respect to providing FBA and the Plan
beneficiaries and participants with information under the Plan. n53
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n53 In a memorandum responding to ALPA's motion to dismiss, FBA, a
defendant below, admitted that "[a] factual determination is required to
determine whether those disclosures [pertaining to the Plan] were made." FBA
also asserted: "Factual determinations abound in the delegation issue,
pretermitting summary judgment on that basis." R. 1191.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4. Where'd the $ [**53]
Go?
A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether TACA
and ALPA colluded with Huttinger in order to provide him with retirement
benefits. As discussed supra, Frank Landry declared in an affidavit
that each party to the alleged collusion was motivated by different factors.
According to Landry, TACA threatened civil suit and criminal prosecution against
ALPA for the intentional damage of TACA's engines by some of the ALPA pilots.
n54 In return for ALPA's accepting the 1986 Pilots' Agreement, TACA agreed not
to carry out this threat. TACA, meanwhile, would be able to move its pilot base
to El Salvador and avoid its obligations under the Plan.
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n54 These allegations are discussed more fully in the RICO section,
infra.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Landry further claimed that Huttinger was
offered benefits to which he would otherwise not have been entitled as an
incentive for him to vote against the [*422]
pilots' interests. If such collusion did occur, then TACA, ALPA, and Huttinger
are implicated as fiduciaries under [**54]
3(21)(A) because they would have exercised actual control over the disposition
of the assets of the Plan. In other words, by allegedly colluding to provide
Huttinger with retirement benefits, ALPA, TACA, and Huttinger became
fiduciaries over the distribution of Plan funds, even if they are not listed as
fiduciaries with respect to that function.
C. Breach of Fiduciary
Duties
Plan fiduciaries are statutorily prohibited from dealing
with Plan assets in their own interest. n55 Moreover, the Plan fiduciaries
agreed to "discharge [their] duties solely in the interest of the Participants
and their Beneficiaries" and to act "for the exclusive purpose of providing
benefits to Participants." n56 To the extent that ALPA and TACA colluded with
Huttinger to provide the latter with Plan benefits, so that the former could
serve their own interests, fiduciary duties were breached under § 1106(b).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n55 § 1106. Prohibited transactions
* * *
(b) Transactions between plan and fiduciary A fiduciary
with respect to a plan shall not --
(1) deal with the assets of the
plan in his own interest or for his own account,
(2) in his individual
or in any other capacity act in any transaction involving the plan on behalf
of a party (or represent a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests
of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries, or
(3) receive any consideration for his own personal account from any
party dealing with such plan in connection with a transaction involving the
assets of the plan. 29
U.S.C. § 1106(b).
[**55]
n56 Article 9.2 provides in relevant part:
General Fiduciary Duties -- Each Plan fiduciary will
discharge his duties solely in the interest of the Participants and their
Beneficiaries and act: (a) for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to
Participants and their Beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the Plan; (b) with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under
the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like
capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an
enterprise of a like character and with like aims; . . . No Plan fiduciary
shall engage in any transaction prohibited under ERISA, the Internal Revenue
Code, or any other law."
This Plan language
follows the terms of the ERISA provision on the standard of care for
fiduciaries:
§ 1104. Fiduciary duties
(a) Prudent man
standard of care
(1) Subject to sections 1103(c) and (d), 1342, and 1344
of this title, a fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to a plan
solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and --
(A) for the exclusive purpose of:
(i) providing
benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and
(ii) defraying
reasonable expenses of administering the plan;
(B) with the care, skill,
prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a
prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would
use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims;
(C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the
risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent
not to do so; and
(D) in accordance with the documents and instruments
governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent
with the provisions of this subchapter or subchapter III of this
chapter.
29
U.S.C. § 1104(a).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**56]
Moreover, we must stress that although
Sommers limited the liability of fiduciaries by the "to the extent"
language of § 3(21)(A) this limitation does not apply to § 1105(a). n57 To
illustrate, even if ALPA is only found to be a fiduciary "to the extent" of
appointing and removing the Plan administrator [*423] and Trustee, n58 ALPA may still be liable, for
example, for the breaches of FBA if ALPA "participated knowingly in, or
knowingly undertook to conceal, an act or omission of [FBA], knowing such act or
omission [was] a breach." § 1105(a)(1).
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n57 § 1105.
Liability for breach of co-fiduciary
(a) Circumstances giving rise to liability
In addition to
any liability which he may have under any other provision of this part, a
fiduciary with respect to a plan shall be liable for a breach of fiduciary
responsibility of another fiduciary with respect to the same plan in the
following circumstances:
(1) if he participates knowingly in, or knowingly
undertakes to conceal, an act or omission of such other fiduciary, knowing
such act or omission is a breach;
(2) if, by his failure to comply with
section 1104(a)(1) of this title in the administration of his specific
responsibilities which give rise to his status as a fiduciary, he has
enabled such other fiduciary to commit a breach; or
(3) if he has
knowledge of a breach by such other fiduciary, unless he makes reasonable
efforts under the circumstances to remedy the
breach.
29
U.S.C. § 1105(a). [**57]
n58 This
example is only an illustration to assist the trial court on remand; it reaches
no conclusions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D. Status of FBA
The
pilots' case against FBA is still pending in the district court. FBA has moved
for summary judgment against the pilots' claims, but the trial court has not
decided the motion. n59 Although the decision appealed herein does not directly
address FBA's fiduciary status or liability, FBA has filed an intervenor brief
seeking to protect its interest in the litigation. Basically, FBA appears to be
concerned that since the trial court found that TACA and ALPA were not
fiduciaries, and dismissed the claim against Huttinger, the only party remaining
upon which fiduciary duty can be imposed is FBA.
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n59 In
expectation of an appellate opinion that would be forced to explicitly or
implicitly discuss the fiduciary status and liability of FBA, the trial court
may, wisely, be waiting for our decision before ruling on FBA's motion for
summary judgment. An obvious possibility is to consolidate this remanded action
with the FBA action.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**58]
Thus, in its intervenor brief FBA argues
that a determination of whether TACA or ALPA acted in accordance with the
fiduciary provisions of ERISA is neither necessary nor relevant. FBA asserts
that allegations of improper plan termination do not raise any ERISA issues --
but rather involve the RLA -- since plan termination is a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining under the RLA. FBA also claims that the Plan should be
placed into trusteeship by voluntary action of the Pension Benefits Guarantee
Corporation (PBGC).
FBA's arguments are unconvincing. The ERISA claim
against ALPA and TACA on which the Court below ruled -- the only ERISA ruling
before us on appeal -- only concerned action taken prior to Plan
termination. Because the District Court's ruling properly confined itself to the
claims before it, and did not address any ERISA claim related to Plan
termination, there is no ERISA "finding" related to Plan termination which we
could reverse. FBA's request actually asks us to become a fact-finder ab
initio, a role which does not properly rest with this Court. Booker
v. School Dist. No. 1, 585 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir.1978) ("function of
the appellate [**59] court is not to make an
initial decision [on factual issues] but simply to review the action of the
trial court."), cert. denied, 443
U.S. 915, 99 S. Ct. 3106, 61 L. Ed. 2d 878 (1979).
Moreover,
arguments by FBA that it should initiate proceedings against PBGC for ancillary
relief under the insurance guaranty provisions of ERISA are not relevant to the
issue of whether TACA, ALPA, or Huttinger had any fiduciary duties under the
Plan. An August 10, 1988 letter from the PBGC to the president of FBA stated
that the notification given to the pilots was insufficient, and that the Plan
was an ongoing plan until properly terminated. According to the PBGC letter,
TACA is required to meet the minimum funding standards under § 302 of ERISA and
§
412 of the Internal Revenue Code as long as the Plan is ongoing. Thus, while
the pilots may ultimately choose to seek relief from the PBGC, FBA cannot force
it to take this approach.
In sum, when summary judgment was granted on
the ERISA claims, the record contained disputed issues of material fact
regarding the fiduciary status of the defendants with respect to the wrongs
alleged in the complaint. We remand to the trial court [**60] for a determination not inconsistent with this
opinion.
IV. RICO CLAIMS
In their amended complaint,
pilots sought treble damages from TACA, ALPA and Huttinger under two subsections
of RICO. n60 We must determine whether [*424]
TACA, ALPA, and Huttinger showed there were no genuine issues of material fact
concerning the existence of (i) a RICO person, (ii) predicate acts of
racketeering activity, (iii) a pattern of racketeering
activity, and (iv) an enterprise. n61 The absence of a fact issue
regarding any one of these elements is sufficient to grant summary judgment
provided the legal analysis also favors the movants.
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n60
18
U.S.C. § 1962. Prohibited Activities:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of
racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or
maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise
which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
[**61]
n61 Delta
Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co., 855 F.2d 241, 242 (5th
Cir.1988), cert. denied, U.S. ,
109 S. Ct. 1531, 103 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1989) ("Reduced to its three essentials,
a civil RICO claim must involve: (1) a person who engages in (2) a
pattern of racketeering activity (3) connected to the acquisition,
establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise."); see also
Gray
v. Cauble, 849 F.2d 946, 949 n. 7 (5th Cir.1988) (test for § 1962(c));
Moss
v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir.1983), cert.
denied, 465
U.S. 1025, 104 S. Ct. 1280, 79 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1984) (test for §
1962(a)-(c)).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The trial judge granted summary judgment
against the pilots. In brief, he found that if any predicate acts occurred, they
took place before the alleged RICO enterprise came into being. Additionally,
none of the alleged predicate acts were found sufficient for the RICO claim. n62
The trial court did find that a "pattern" of racketeering activities was
alleged, n63 but held [**62] that there was no
enterprise because plaintiffs failed to allege the appropriate "continuity"
under either of its enterprise theories.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n62 For the
specifics as to the trial court's disposition of each of the alleged predicate
acts, see infra Part IV. B.
n63 In making this ruling, the
trial court was constrained by R.A.G.S.
Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt, 774 F.2d 1350 (5th Cir.1985), although it made
an effort to show why no pattern should be found in this circumstance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de
novo. n64 The standards for granting or denying summary judgment are well
known.
The party seeking summary judgment bears the exacting burden of
demonstrating that there is no actual dispute as to any material fact in the
case. . . . In assessing whether the movant has met this burden, the courts
should view the evidence introduced and all factual inferences from that
evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. . . .
All reasonable doubts [**63] about the facts
should be resolved in favor of the non-moving litigant. . . . A court must not
decide any factual issues it finds in the record, but if such are present, the
court must deny the motion and proceed to trial. . . . If reasonable minds
might differ on the inference arising from undisputed facts, then the court
should deny summary judgment. n65
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n64 Impossible
Electronics Techniques, Inc. v. Wackenhut Protective Systems, Inc., 669
F.2d 1026, 1030 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) ("In reviewing a decision granting or
denying summary judgment, this court applies the same legal standards as those
that control the district court in determining whether summary judgment is
appropriate.") (Citations omitted).
n65 Id.
at 1031 (citations omitted).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Appropriate summary
judgment evidence consists of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any."
F.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The affidavits must be made on "personal [**64] knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be
admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is
competent to testify to the matters stated therein." F.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Finally,
once the movant has made and supported its motion as provided in this rule, the
"adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse
party's pleadings, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as
otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Id.
[*425] A. The RICO Persons
The Fifth
Circuit recently clarified the definition of the RICO "person" -- the defendant
-- in Delta Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co. n66
If we are to restrict RICO to the type of conduct Congress
intended to proscribe, the RICO person must be either one that poses or has
posed a continuous threat of engaging in acts of racketeering. . . . The
continuous threat requirement may not be satisfied if no more is pled than
that the person has engaged in a limited number of predicate racketeering
acts.
We are faced here with three RICO defendants
and two theories of the enterprise [**65] n67
which configure them in different ways.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n66 855
F.2d 241, 242 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, U.S. ,
109 S. Ct. 1531, 103 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1989).
n67 Pilots' two
enterprise theories are discussed in detail, infra, Part IV.D..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
1. Association-in-fact Persons
Under
pilots' "association-in-fact" enterprise theory, Huttinger, ALPA and TACA formed
or acted as an enterprise, whose alleged purpose was to move the TACA pilot
base, end ALPA's representation of the TACA pilots, ensure Huttinger's
retirement benefits and ultimately deprive the pilots of their rights under the
collective bargaining agreement. Under this enterprise theory, all three could
be RICO defendants. According to pilots' allegations and affidavit evidence,
those goals have been accomplished, so the enterprise no longer exists. n68
There are no RICO defendants under this theory.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n68 This
is discussed in detail in Part IV.D., infra.
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**66]
2. ALPA-as-Enterprise Persons
The pilots' other enterprise theory regards ALPA as a lawful enterprise
which was the vehicle for racketeering activities perpetrated by TACA and
Huttinger. Under this theory, ALPA cannot be a RICO person -- or defendant --
for the § 1962(c) violation because in such a situation, "the 'person' and the
'enterprise' must be distinct." n69 The rationale for this distinction comes
from the language of the statute which deals with a "person employed by or
associated with any enterprise." 18
U.S.C. § 1962 (c). n70 This language shows that Congress intended for the
RICO person and the enterprise to be separate entities.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n69 Bishop
v. Corbitt Marine Ways, Inc., 802 F.2d 122, 123 (5th Cir.1986); see
also Atkinson
v. Anadarko Bank and Trust Co., 808 F.2d 438, 441 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 483
U.S. 1032, 107 S. Ct. 3276, 97 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1987).
n70 The Fifth
Circuit has adopted the rationale of the Seventh Circuit in this regard. See
Haroco
v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384, 400
(7th Cir.1984), aff'd 473
U.S. 606, 105 S. Ct. 3291, 87 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1985).
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**67]
It would be incongruous here to find that
while ALPA, as the enterprise, cannot be a RICO person, it can be held
vicariously liable for the acts of Huttinger. If this were the rule, all legal
enterprises could be found liable under RICO if their employees or agents were
involved in perpetrating predicate acts through or against them. This is
contrary to the rule Congress meant to impose as evidenced by the language of
the statute. ALPA is thus not appropriately a defendant under this legal
enterprise theory for purposes of the § 1962(c) violation, either as a RICO
person or vicariously.
ALPA can be both the enterprise and a RICO
defendant for the § 1962(b) violation. In contrast to the language of subsection
(c) which "requires a relationship between the 'person' and the
'enterprise,' subsection[ . . .] (b) requires only the use of an
'enterprise' by a 'person.'" n71 Thus the RICO person and the enterprise need
not be distinct for a person to be held liable under subsection (b). A finding
of vicarious liability on the part of an enterprise which derived benefit from
its representative's wrongful acts is also consistent with this view. n72
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n71 Liquid
Air Corp. v. Rogers, 834 F.2d 1297, 1307 (7th Cir.1987), cert.
denied, U.S. ,
109 S. Ct. 3241, 106 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1989). [**68]
n72 Id.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[*426] The continuing threat
requirement must still be met. For purposes of the alleged subsection (c)
violation, only TACA and Huttinger could be defendants. Pilots have not alleged
that TACA constitutes or has constituted a continuing threat -- it is not a RICO
person. A fact issue exists as to whether Huttinger poses a continuing threat
resulting from his receipt of retirement benefits. This turns on the fact issue
which we find to exist, as to whether the receipt of these benefits constitutes
mail fraud.
For purposes of the subsection (b) violation, pilots have
alleged that ALPA poses a threat of continuing harm to other victims. As an
example, they cite a suit against ALPA by Continental Airlines pilots making
much the same allegations as the TACA pilots: ALPA sold them out to protect
itself from prosecution for the acts of sabotage it directed. This allegation is
unrefuted by any summary judgment evidence. Thus the allegation that ALPA poses
a continuing threat of engaging in racketeering activities remains to be
resolved. Likewise there is a fact issue as to whether [**69] Huttinger's receipt of retirement benefits is a
continuation of racketeering activity. Again, TACA is not a RICO person for
purposes of this violation. n73
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n73 Although we have found
that TACA is not appropriately a RICO person -- or defendant -- for any of the
alleged RICO violations, pilots' allegations of TACA's past wrongdoing will
frequently be discussed in the remainder of this section. We will explain the
effect of TACA's status where appropriate.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.
Racketeering Activity n74
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n74 Racketeering activity
is defined in relevant part as:
(A) state law felonies; (B) acts indictable
under several sections of 18 U.S.C. relating to, e.g., bribery (§ 201),
embezzlement from pension and welfare funds (§ 664), mail fraud (§ 1341), wire
fraud (§ 1343); (C) acts indictable under sections of 29 U.S.C. including
violations of restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations (§ 186)
and embezzlement from union funds (§ 501(c)); and (D) offenses involving fraud
under Title 11, in the sale of securities, etc. 18
U.S.C. § 1961(1).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End
Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**70]
1. The Extortion Claim
As
one of the predicate acts of racketeering activity, the pilots claimed that
TACA, ALPA and Huttinger committed extortion in violation of Louisiana state law
n75 and 18
U.S.C. § 1951. n76 In support of these claims, the pilots alleged that
Padgett, at the direction of Huttinger and ALPA, committed acts of sabotage
against TACA aircraft and equipment to coerce concessions during negotiation of
the collective bargaining agreement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n75 The particular
provision of Louisiana state law that was violated is not specified in the RICO
case statement or the trial court's opinion.
n76 18
U.S.C. § 1951 Interference with commerce by threats or violence. "(a)
Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the
movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or
attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any
person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in
violation of this section shall be fined not more than $ 10,000 or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**71]
We agree with the trial court that these
acts may not properly be considered predicate acts. The pilots did not allege
that these extortionate acts were committed in the establishment or conduct of
the affairs of an enterprise. If anything, they could only have been hostile to
the goals of an alleged enterprise of which TACA and ALPA were both members. n77
Finally, the acts of sabotage are not actionable because the pilots did not
allege or show that they sustained any injury as a result. n78 In fact, [*427] the sabotage, under the theory advanced by
pilots, was intended to provide the pilots with an advantage in the form of
bargaining concessions. It was not intended to deprive them of any rights.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n77 This claim could not properly be raised under the
ALPA-as-Enterprise theory in connection with the § 1962(c) claim since ALPA is
not properly a defendant for that claim. See supra notes 68-70 and
accompanying text.
n78 R.A.G.S.
Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt, 774 F.2d 1350, 1354 (5th Cir.1985)
("Any injury to business or property caused by a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) is sufficient.) (Emphasis added). The Fifth Circuit derived
this rule from Sedima,
S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 495, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3284, 87
L. Ed. 2d 346, 358 (1985), which held,
If the defendant engages in a pattern of racketeering
activity in a manner forbidden by these provisions, and the racketeering
activities injure the plaintiff in his business or property, the plaintiff has
a claim under § 1964(c).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**72]
2. The 29
U.S.C. § 186 Violation
The pilots alleged that ALPA
made illegal payments to a labor official in violation of 29
U.S.C. § 186, which is section 302 of the LMRA. n79 In support of their
claim, they provide the following facts. Huttinger suffered from a disability
which prevented him from flying. The result of this should have been his removal
from active status in late 1984, five years after he became disabled. Once
removed from active status, he would not have been entitled to sick leave, to be
on the priority list, or to represent ALPA in its negotiations with TACA. Yet
Huttinger stayed on the seniority list, received sick leave benefits,
represented ALPA in its negotiations with TACA, and received a $ 26,000
severance payment.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n79 29
U.S.C. § 186 provides:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of
employers or any person who acts as a labor relations expert, adviser, or
consultant to an employer or who acts in the interest of an employer to pay,
lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing
of value --
(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are
employed in an industry affecting commerce; or
(2) to any labor
organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to
represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer
who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or
(3) to any
employee or group or committee of employees of such employer employed in an
industry affecting commerce in excess of their normal compensation for the
purpose of causing such employee or group or committee directly or indirectly
to influence any other employees in the exercise of the right to organize and
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; or
(4) to any officer or employee of a labor organization engaged in an
industry affecting commerce with intent to influence him in respect to any of
his actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of employees or as such
officer or employee of such labor organization.
(b)(1) It shall be
unlawful for any person to request, demand, receive, or accept, or agree to
accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or other thing of value
prohibited by subsection (a) of this section.
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**73]
There is no factual issue to be resolved
regarding these allegations for two reasons. First, ALPA has produced affidavits
and documents that we find establish as a matter of law that under its
constitution and by-laws, Huttinger was properly on the "active" status list and
therefore entitled to all the privileges of ALPA membership including the right
to vote and hold office. Since the pilots presented no evidence to rebut this,
ALPA has shown the absence of a material fact issue in this respect. Second, the
LMRA makes it illegal for an employer to pay or lend money to a union that
represents its employees and for the union to receive or demand such payments.
However, the LMRA excludes from coverage RLA employers and employees. n80
Airlines and airline pilots come under the RLA. n81
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n80 29
U.S.C. §§ 142(3), 152(2), (3); see also United
States v. Davidoff, 359 F. Supp. 545, 547-48 (E.D.N.Y.1973).
n81 45
U.S.C. § 182.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In response to the [**74] seemingly conclusory statutory disposition of this
issue, pilots raise a subtle argument. Their theory is that TACA, ALPA, and
Huttinger contractually converted themselves from RLA to LMRA coverage through
the agreement by which TACA was relocated to El Salvador and the pilots were
terminated. The district court rejected this argument, finding that TACA was not
relieved of RLA obligations until September 1, 1985 which was after any
enterprise that may have existed was dissolved. We agree that TACA was an RLA
employer when the alleged LMRA violations occurred. Although TACA is not a RICO
defendant, we must reach this issue to determine the status of Huttinger and
ALPA, who were likewise subject to the RLA. Thus no predicate racketeering act
is stated.
3. The Mail and Wire Fraud Claims
The pilots
have described four acts which they allege constituted mail fraud and [*428] therefore predicate acts for RICO. (1) On July 3,
1985 Huttinger wrote the pilots to say negotiations between ALPA and TACA had
broken down. He said that regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, TACA
would have to contribute to the pension plan. TACA has not continued its
contributions to the plan. [**75] (2) On July
24, 1985 Huttinger sent a letter and telegram to the pilots saying that TACA and
ALPA had reached an agreement "subject to ratification." Pilots were not given
the chance to ratify the agreement. (3) On August 3, 1985 TACA sent a letter to
the pilots informing them that ALPA had agreed to the relocation of the pilot
base to El Salvador. The pilots were given twelve days to decide to leave TACA
and take severance pay or to move themselves and their families to El Salvador.
This communication did not inform the pilots that their retirement fund would be
terminated or that they needed to take certain actions to protect their
eligibility to receive benefits. Pilots later learned that they had lost their
right to receive benefits. (4) The pilots allege that illegal payments of
severance pay and retirement benefits were made and are being made by mail to
Huttinger in furtherance of the scheme to defraud the pilots.
The trial
court disregarded the final allegation (No. (4)) on the grounds that it had not
been pleaded with sufficient particularity to withstand F.R.Civ.P. 9(b). n82 It
apparently found that the other allegations of mail fraud were insufficient,
based upon its general [**76] finding that the
alleged acts predated any possible enterprise.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n82 This
is discussed infra; see text accompanying notes 92-93.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We disagree with the trial court's characterization of the timing. These
alleged acts of mail and wire fraud occurred during the negotiation process.
ALPA was continuously in existence throughout this time so any acts that
occurred or were alleged took place during the existence of the
"ALPA-as-enterprise" enterprise.
The crime of mail fraud is committed
when the mails are used as part of a scheme or artifice to defraud. n83 The
elements of mail fraud as a predicate offense for civil RICO purposes are:
(1) A scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property
by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises.
(2) Interstate or intrastate use of the mails for the purpose of
furthering or executing the scheme or artifice to defraud.
(3) The use
of the mails by the defendant connected with the scheme artifice [sic] to
defraud.
(4) Actual [**77] injury to
the business or property of the plaintiff. n84
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n83 18
U.S.C. § 1341. Frauds and Swindles.
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or
artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, . . . for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice or attempting to do so, places in any post
office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever
to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom,
any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail
according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to
be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing,
shall be fined not more than $ 1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
n84 1 D. McCormack, Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations 4-46 -- 4-47 (Knowles Law Book Publishing,
Inc. 1989).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - [**78]
The
mail fraud statute proscribes two different offenses. The first is acting
pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud. The second is acting pursuant to a
scheme or artifice for the purpose of obtaining money or property by means of
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. n85 Plaintiffs have
alleged both types of schemes in this case.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n85
Id. at 4-47, citing, United
States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 121 (2d Cir.1982), cert.
denied, 461
U.S. 913, 103 S. Ct. 1891, 77 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1983) ("The prohibition against
schemes or artifices to defraud is properly interpreted to be independent of the
clause 'for obtaining money or property.'") (Citations omitted); see also
United
States v. Townley, 665 F.2d 579, 585 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
456
U.S. 1010, 102 S. Ct. 2305, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1307 (1982); McLendon
v. Continental Group, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1492, 1507 (D.N.J.1985).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
[*429] First, they allege
[**79] that TACA and Huttinger operating through
and with the enterprise ALPA, schemed to achieve the relocation of TACA's pilot
base to El Salvador. n86 Each of the participants had individual motivations for
wishing the achievement of this end, but they all required the success of this
common goal. In order to achieve their end, TACA, ALPA and Huttinger
participated in a scheme to defraud the pilots of their jobs and pension
benefits. n87 Reading the facts in the light most favorable to the pilots, the
following steps could have occurred as part of this plan to defraud. The pilots
were sent letters telling them that the plan would not be touched and was not a
subject of the negotiations between TACA and ALPA. They were told that the
agreement ultimately reached was "subject to ratification." They were not told
that the agreement which was reached, and which actually did not require
ratification by the membership, terminated their pension benefits at the time
they had to decide between quitting (for severance pay) and relocating to El
Salvador.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
n86 The pilots also alleged that the
association-in-fact enterprise of ALPA, TACA, and Huttinger, which we find did
not exist, had this goal. [**80]
n87 The
pilots have sufficiently alleged an intent to defraud, but even in the absence
of such a showing, the intent to defraud is imputed to civil RICO defendants who
act with reckless indifference to the truth or falsity of their representations.
United
States v. Frick, 588 F.2d 531, 536 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
441
U.S. 913, 99 S. Ct. 2013, 60 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1979); see also United
States v. Love, 535 F.2d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
429
U.S. 847, 97 S. Ct. 130, 50 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1976); United
States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1979). If the
misrepresentations, omissions and false promises alleged here were not
intentional, then they were certainly reckless. The RICO defendants correctly
state that under the mail fraud statute, the determination of what constitutes
fraud is left largely to outside sources of law. Parr
v. United States, 363 U.S. 370, 389, 80 S. Ct. 1171, 1182, 4 L. Ed. 2d
1277, 1289 (1960). They are incorrect, however, in their position that such
fraud must be found in the pilots' DFR, ERISA, LMRA, or conversion claims.
Clearly the state common law of fraud may provide a source of substantive law
and the allegations are sufficient to support such a claim having been made.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - [**81]
These
misrepresentations, omissions n88 and false promises may have initially lulled
the pilots into inaction. Based on these communications, they thought that
Huttinger and ALPA were protecting their interests and they had no reason to
question the system. Pilots allege that this correspondence ultimately had the
effect of defrauding them of their jobs and pension benefits. TACA was able to
relocate; ALPA was not prosecuted and was able to drop its representation of the
TACA pilots; Huttinger received severance and retirement benefits. Only the
pilots lost out. The intentional misrepresentations and omissions could have
created a valuable undue advantage for TACA, ALPA and Huttinger n89 and thus
constituted a scheme or artifice to defraud. n90
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n88
See United
States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 757 (9th Cir.1979) (both
communication of half truths and concealment of material facts are actionable
under the mail fraud statute).
n89 Although we have referred to TACA's
goals and the benefits it received, they are not necessary. The fact issues with
regard to ALPA and Huttinger are sufficient to state the claim. [**82]
n90 United
States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 849 (9th Cir.1981), cert.
denied, 454
U.S. 1157, 102 S. Ct. 1031, 71 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1982).
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additionally, the defendants allegedly sought to obtain money or
property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises.
These are seen in their asserted motivations for their common goal of effecting
the relocation and the benefits each received as a result. ALPA would save money
by ridding itself of a small, yet costly, local union. It would also avoid the
expense of defending against civil cases and criminal charges based on its
alleged sabotage of TACA's planes. Huttinger would gain his severance pay and
pension benefits. n91
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n91 Because he retired at
the appropriate time, Huttinger qualified for pension benefits. However, the
pension plan was underfunded and could not afford to pay full benefits to all
the pilots eligible for retirement under the plan. Thus, one could infer from
the undisputed facts that once Huttinger began receiving payment under the plan,
or realized he could qualify for benefits and preempt any other pilots from
doing so, he had an incentive to provoke the relocation, thereby denying the
other pilots the opportunity to prove their eligibility.
Even before he
began to receive retirement payments, Huttinger had an incentive to keep the
pilots in ignorance of the effect a termination would have and of their rights
under the plan. As chairman of the pension committee, he was in the perfect spot
to have all the information needed to protect his interest and at the same time
to know what information he should not disseminate in order to protect that
interest against diminution by the claims of all the eligible pilots.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - [**83]
[*430] Only ALPA has controverted the goals, outlined
above, which pilots have asserted. In an unchallenged affidavit ALPA has stated
that the cost of representing the TACA pilots was not a factor in its
negotiating strategy or posture. We point out that ALPA has not said
exactly what it was trying to accomplish on behalf of the pilots. ALPA also has
not denied that it was threatened with criminal prosecution and civil damage
suits. In light of the remaining undisputed facts and the inferences therefrom,
we find that mail fraud has been sufficiently alleged to create genuine factual
issues regarding predicate acts of racketeering activity.
We also
disagree with the trial court's disposition of the allegations of mail fraud in
connection with Huttinger's receipt of pension benefits. F.R.Civ.P. 9(b)
requires that "in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." However, Rule
9(b) is read in connection with F.R.Civ.P. 8 which requires only a "short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
n92 The pilots have certainly pleaded sufficient facts to put the defendants
[**84] on notice of their claim with regard to
Huttinger's receipt of pension benefits. As early as the Original Complaint, n93
the pilots alleged that Huttinger had breached his duty of fair representation,
a fiduciary duty, by agreeing to the structuring of the termination agreement in
such a way that Huttinger's pension would be funded, but no one else's.
Additionally, in the amended complaint, the pilots alleged that Huttinger
applied for and is receiving pension benefits and that this was in connection
with the scheme to defraud the pilots.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n92 F.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2); see Ross
v. A.H. Robins Co., 607 F.2d 545, 557 n. 20 (2d Cir.1979), cert.
denied, 446
U.S. 946, 100 S. Ct. 2175, 64 L. Ed. 2d 802 (1980) ("The requirement of
particularity does not abrogate Rule 8, and it should be harmonized with the
general directives . . . of Rule 8 that the pleading should contain a 'short and
plain' statement of the claim or defense and with each averment should be
'simple, concise and direct.' Rule 9(b) does not require nor make legitimate the
pleading of detailed evidentiary matter.") (Citations omitted). [**85]
n93 The claims alleged in the original
complaint were dismissed before the RICO claim was addressed by the trial court.
The factual allegations contained in the Original Complaint are relevant to the
RICO claim, however, because the Amended Complaint incorporates them all by
reference.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Finally, in the RICO Case Statement, the
pilots spent a great deal of time detailing their factual allegations regarding
Huttinger's receipt of pension funds. They alleged, in pertinent part, that
Huttinger and ALPA bargained away TACA's obligation to continue funding the
pension plan in return for TACA's agreement not to bring civil or criminal
charges against ALPA for the acts of espionage described, supra.
Huttinger was aware that this left the plan underfunded and that not all pilots
would be able to receive their pension benefits. The pilots claimed that
Huttinger intentionally failed to inform them of their right to apply for early
retirement or of the fact that if they did not apply for benefits prior to the
termination of funding, they would not be entitled to receive any benefits.
Thus, the pilots [**86] argued that, in manifest
abuse of his fiduciary position, Huttinger assured himself of his own benefits
by keeping those he represented in the dark. We cannot conceive of how the
defendants failed to be put on notice of the claim with the amount of detail
that was provided. We find that the pilots have alleged with particularity the
defendants' acts which they contend amount to fraud. n94
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n94 See Unimobil
84, Inc. v. Spurney, 797 F.2d 214, 217 (5th Cir.1986).
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[*431] 4. Violation of 18
U.S.C. § 664 n95
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n95 18
U.S.C. § 664 Theft or embezzlement from employee benefit plan:
Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully
abstracts or converts to his own use or to the use of another, any of the
moneys, funds, securities, premiums, credits, property, or other assets of any
employee welfare benefit plan or employee pension benefit plan, or of any fund
connected therewith, shall be fined not more than $ 10,000, or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**87]
Pilots allege that Huttinger's receipt of
retirement benefits is a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 664. The trial court did not address this issue, finding that
pilots had not pleaded the issue in its Original or Amended Complaints. We
disagree, finding the allegation at Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint where
pilots said: "On information and belief, . . . TACA and Charles J. Huttinger
converted money and funds of the TACA pilot's employee benefit plan for their
own uses." Additionally, the trial court found that pilots had adduced no
evidence on this claim since the only relevant affidavit was not based on
personal knowledge. We deal with this finding below.
Pilots have not
directly shown, by affidavit or otherwise, what acts constituted conversion, who
committed these acts, when the acts were done, or by whom. However, it is clear,
in connection with pilots' other factual allegations, that they are referring to
Huttinger's receipt of retirement benefits.
The Ninth Circuit dealt
extensively with § 664 liability in United
States v. Andreen, 628 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir.1980). The terms in the
statute are to be given their traditional meanings. [**88] Thus, "the concept of unlawful conversion
encompasses the use of property, placed in one's custody for a limited purpose,
in an unauthorized manner or to an unauthorized extent." n96 Embezzlement
"encompasses the fraudulent appropriation of the property of another by one in
lawful possession thereof." n97 The statute encompasses more than traditional
embezzlement and unlawful conversion, however, and imposes liability for
intentional breaches of special fiduciary duties imposed by other statutes or
the instruments governing the trust. n98
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n96 Id.
at 1241, citing, Morissette
v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 272, 72 S. Ct. 240, 254, 96 L. Ed. 288
(1952).
n97 Id., citing, United
States v. Dupee, 569 F.2d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.1978).
n98
Id.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The RICO defendants argue that pilots have
not stated a predicate act here because they have shown neither scienter, n99
nor that Huttinger's receipt of pension benefits was "substantially inconsistent
with [**89] the fiduciary purposes and
objectives of the . . . pension plan, as set forth by statutes, bylaws,
charters, or trust documents which govern uses of the funds in question." n100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n99 Id. Scienter is an essential element of a §
664 violation.
n100 Brief of ALPA and Huttinger at 36-37, citing,
United
States v. Andreen, 628 F.2d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir.1980).
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We state once again that pilots' burden in response to the motions for
summary judgment was not to prove its case, but to show the existence of genuine
and material fact issues regarding its essential elements. The RICO defendants
have not produced any evidence negating the scienter element. They have not
demonstrated that Huttinger did not act willfully, that is "with a fraudulent
intent or a bad purpose or an evil motive." n101 Since the movants have not
shown the absence of any disputed fact issues in this regard, they have failed
to meet their burden. Thus the allegations in the pilots' Complaints stand and
remain for resolution [**90] on remand.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
n101 Id.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The fact that
pilots have made allegations which the RICO defendants refute in brief but not
with facts, by way of affidavit evidence or otherwise, shows that factual issues
remain to be resolved. The only way movants could prevail on this aspect of
their summary judgment motion is by a legal finding that Huttinger did not
breach any fiduciary duties under ERISA or 29
[*432] U.S.C. § 501. n102 As we found above
that Huttinger clearly did breach fiduciary duties, n103 the factual issues
remain to be resolved.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n102 Pilots allege that
Huttinger breached the fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA and those created by 29
U.S.C. § 501. The ERISA claims are dealt with, supra. 29
U.S.C. § 501. Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations:
(a) The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other
representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation
to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of
each such person . . . to hold its money and property solely for the benefit
of the organization and its members. . . .
[**91]
n103 See supra, ERISA portion of
opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
C. Pattern
The United States
Supreme Court has recently revised and "clarified" the definition of pattern in
the RICO statute. In H.J.
Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. , 109
S. Ct. 2893, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989), the Supreme Court rejected the Eighth
Circuit's "multiple scheme" requirement and also disagreed with "those courts
that have suggested that a pattern is established merely by proving two
predicate acts." n104 The Fifth Circuit has explicitly recognized that H.J.
Inc. narrowed the definition of pattern from that previously used in this
circuit. n105 Thus prior Fifth Circuit precedent, and those cases cited by the
parties, are of little assistance to us.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n104 H.J.,
Inc., 492 U.S. at , 109 S. Ct. at 2899, 106 L. Ed. 2d at
206.
n105 Smith
v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp., 886 F.2d 755, 756 (5th Cir.1989). The prior
Fifth Circuit pattern requirement was described in R.A.G.S.
Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt, 774 F.2d 1350, 1355 (5th Cir.1985) (holding
that two "related" acts of mail fraud constitute a pattern).
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**92]
In H.J. Inc., the
Supreme Court found that
RICO's legislative history reveals Congress' intent that to
prove a pattern of racketeering activity a plaintiff or prosecutor must show
that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to
or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. n106
The relationship element has been defined by borrowing from a
related statute. "Criminal conduct forms a pattern if it embraces criminal acts
that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or
methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing
characteristics and are not isolated events." n107 The Supreme Court found the
definition of continuity more difficult, and opted for a flexible approach that
they believe derives from a common everyday understanding of RICO.
What a plaintiff or prosecutor must prove is continuity of
racketeering activity, or its threat, simpliciter. . . . "Continuity"
is both a closed- and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed period
of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the
future with a threat of repetition. . . . It is, in either [**93] case, centrally a temporal concept -- and
particularly so in the RICO context, where what must be continuous,
RICO's predicate acts or offenses, and the relationship these
predicates must bear to one another, are distinct requirements.
n108
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n106 H.J. Inc.,
492 U.S. at , 109 S. Ct. at 2900, 106 L. Ed. 2d at 208.
n107 Id. The definition of relationship thus adopted is the
pattern definition from Title X of the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA), which
is the Dangerous Special Offender Sentencing Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3575, et seq. RICO forms Title IX of the OCCA.
n108 Id., 492 U.S. at , 109 S. Ct. at 2901,
106 L. Ed. 2d at 209. The Court went on to clarify how "continuity" may be
proved.
A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity
over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over
a substantial period of time. Prediate acts extending over a few weeks or
months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this
requirement: Congress was concerned in RICO with long-term criminal conduct.
Often a RICO action will be brought before continuity can be established in
this way. In such cases, liability depends on whether the threat of
continuity is demonstrated.
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**94]
[*433]
The relationship element is easily satisfied here by pilots' allegations. First,
all of the predicate acts were aimed at achieving a single goal -- relocation of
the pilots' base to El Salvador. Only through the accomplishment of this goal
could all of the RICO defendants' subsidiary goals be accomplished. Second, we
find the participants were the same: ALPA and Huttinger. Third, the victims were
the same: the pilots. Finally, the events are in no way isolated, but are
related in the sense that they all occurred or commenced during or grew out of
the process of negotiating TACA's relocation program. The RICO defendants have
put on some evidence that might negate the first element. For example, they have
showed that ALPA's actions were not motivated by a desire to rid itself of a
small, costly union. They have not, however, rebutted the allegation that ALPA
gave in to TACA to avoid prosecution for its sabotage activities. Likewise, they
have tried to show that Huttinger's receipt of pension benefits was proper from
the standpoint of FBA. They have not, however, removed factual disputes
regarding the propriety of Huttinger's activities or his goals.
In sum,
pilots have [**95] alleged relationship. The
RICO defendants' affidavits and submissions do not "show that there is no
genuine issues as to any material fact" in this regard. F.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Thus,
on remand, the trial court must determine whether the relationship element of
the pattern requirement is met.
We find that the continuity element of
the pattern requirement is disposed of by our prior discussion of the RICO
person requirement. There we found the existence of factual issues regarding the
threat of continued racketeering activity by these defendants/appellees. At
least some of the racketeering acts that threaten to continue are related under
the test applied above and for the same reasons.
D. Enterprise
Pilots have developed two alternative theories of the enterprise. The
above discussion has made reference to these separate claims where necessary,
and they will be dealt with in detail here.
1. "Association-in-Fact"
Enterprise
An association-in-fact enterprise must also meet a
continuity requirement. Such an enterprise "(1) must have an existence separate
and apart from the pattern of racketeering, (2) must be an ongoing organization
and (3) its members must function as [**96] a
continuing unit shown by a hierarchical or consensual decision making
structure." n109 We find that the association-in-fact enterprise, if it ever
existed, was one that "briefly flourished and faded" and therefore fails to meet
the requirement that it function as a continuing unit. We do not believe this to
be inconsistent with our findings of fact issues regarding continuity in the
RICO person and the pattern requirements. There the threat was sufficient if it
came from an individual. Here pilots were required to show that the enterprise
as a whole functioned as a continuing unit. In a case like this, where the
enterprise's goals have been accomplished, and where those goals were achieved
in a matter of months, through a discrete pattern of activity, there is no
continuity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
n109 Delta
Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co., 855 F.2d 241, 243 (5th
Cir.1988), cert. denied, U.S. ,
109 S. Ct. 1531, 103 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1989), citing, Manax
v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 811 (5th Cir.1988); Foval
v. First Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 841 F.2d 126, 129-30 (5th Cir.1988);
Montesano
v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 818 F.2d 423, 426-27 (5th Cir.1987); Atkinson
v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co., 808 F.2d 438, 440-41 (5th Cir.1987),
cert. denied, 483
U.S. 1032, 107 S. Ct. 3276, 97 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1987); Shaffer
v. Williams, 794 F.2d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir.1986).
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**97]
In addition, pilots have not alleged or
shown the existence of an enterprise separate and apart from the pattern of
racketeering activity. n110 It appears that once the "Pilots' Agreement" was
reached, and the follow-up acts -- such as obtaining the pilots' severances and
terminating ALPA [*434] representation -- had
occurred, the enterprise ceased to exist. In reality, the association of ALPA
and Huttinger had no alleged purpose other than to commit the predicate acts
leading up to the relocation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n110 See Ocean
Energy II v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc., 868 F.2d 740, 748-49 (5th
Cir.1989), citing, Montesano
v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 818 F.2d 423, 427 (5th Cir.1987).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
2. ALPA as Enterprise
The pilots' second
enterprise theory sees ALPA as the legal enterprise which was a vehicle for
racketeering activities by TACA and Huttinger. n111 There is no question that
ALPA itself satisfies § 1961(4)'s definition of enterprise: "'enterprise'
includes any individual, [**98] partnership,
corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of
individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." ALPA was
continuously in existence throughout the period when the alleged predicate acts
occurred. It remains in existence today. Thus this district court erred in not
finding an enterprise under this theory.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n111 ALPA's
position as a defendant under this theory is discussed, supra at Part
IV.A.1.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
E. RICO Conclusion
We have found
that TACA is not an appropriate RICO defendant because pilots did not allege
that it constitutes a continuing threat. ALPA is a RICO defendant only for
purposes of the § 1962(b) violation; it cannot be both the enterprise and a
defendant for purposes of the § 1962(c) claim. Huttinger is properly a RICO
defendant as to all of pilots' claims.
With regard to the alleged
predicate acts of racketeering activity, we have affirmed the trial
court in some regards and reversed in others. We agree with the trial court that
the [**99] extortion claim was not properly
alleged nor supported by the record. The 29
U.S.C. § 186 claim cannot stand because RLA employers and employees, as a
matter of law, are not subject to this provision of the LMRA. We reverse the
trial court's decision with respect to the mail and wire fraud claims. There are
genuine issues of material fact. Finally, we find that the summary judgment
movants have not met their burden of showing the absence of factual disputes
regarding Huttinger's alleged embezzlement or conversion. Thus pilots'
allegations remain to be resolved on remand.
The Supreme Court's recent
decision in H.J., Inc. holds that in order to prove a pattern
of racketeering activity, the RICO plaintiff must show both relationship and
continuity. We affirm the trial court's holding that a pattern was properly
alleged under this new test. The increased complexity of the new test requires
that we remand this issue for resolution of material factual disputes.
Finally, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's holding
that there was no enterprise alleged. We agree that there was no
"association-in-fact" enterprise alleged because pilots [**100] could not show the requisite continuity.
However, we hold that the pilots properly alleged that ALPA is a RICO
enterprise.
V. Discovery Issues
The pilots filed an
amended complaint setting forth a RICO claim on April 6, 1987 and a RICO Case
Statement, required by the district court's standing order, on August 25, 1987.
At no time in this interval did the pilots seek discovery. ALPA, TACA and
Huttinger moved for summary judgment on the RICO claims and those motions were
set for hearing on October 21, 1987. After the motions were set for argument,
the pilots requested and received a "courtesy" continuance n112 postponing the
hearing until December 2, 1987. Once they had the continuance, pilots noticed
the depositions of Huttinger, FBA and Captain Donald Scott for the last week in
October.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
n112 We adopt this term to refer to an unopposed
continuance motion signed by the trial court.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TACA, ALPA
and Huttinger moved for protective orders pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and (d)
to prevent the taking of these [**101]
depositions prior to the resolution of the summary judgment motions. The hearing
on the summary judgment motions was again continued so that the requests for
protective orders could be heard. At ALPA's request the depositions were
rescheduled [*435] to mid-December. The trial
court granted the protective order staying discovery pending its decision on the
summary judgment motions. Eventually, the summary judgment motions were granted
on March 17, 1988, with no discovery having been taken.
In its order,
the trial court stayed discovery pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(c) "for good cause."
It found that many of the issues raised by the summary judgment motions were
purely legal and that discovery would therefore not aid their resolution. As to
the factual issues presented by the motion, the trial court ruled that "the
plaintiffs have failed to identify with the requisite specificity of F.R.Civ.P.
56(f) the issues which must be amplified by discovery."
F.R.Civ.P. 56(f)
provides that:
Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the
[summary judgment] motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by
affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, [**102] the court may refuse the application for
judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or
depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as
is just.
However, what existed below was not a
Rule 56(f) motion. In the typical 56(f) case, a nonmovant submits affidavits and
requests additional time to conduct discovery to enable him to respond to a
summary judgment motion. In the case at bar, a continuance was granted. In the
time thus created before the hearing on the motions, the pilots sought discovery
to enable them better to respond. In the ordinary course of events this
discovery would have been freely allowed, even unquestioned. However, in this
case, the summary judgment movants, ALPA, TACA and Huttinger, moved the court
for a Rule 26(c) protective order to prevent the taking of the depositions. Thus
the burden was on ALPA, TACA and Huttinger to show why a protective order was
warranted. The burden was not on the pilots, other than in rebuttal, to show why
the discovery was needed. n113 Although the trial court applied the wrong
standard and placed the burden on the wrong party, we find that it reached the
correct result. [**103]
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n113 Had pilots sought a continuance for purposes of obtaining summary
judgment evidence, the burden would have been on them to demonstrate "'how
postponement of a ruling on the motion [would] enable [them], by discovery or
other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of
fact.'" S.E.C.
v. Spence & Greene, 612 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir.1980), citing,
Willmar
Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th
Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424
U.S. 915, 96 S. Ct. 1116, 47 L. Ed. 2d 320 (1976). However, as we have
stated, supra, no Rule 56(f) motion was filed. Pilots had already
received the continuance order when they noticed the depositions. Pilots had a
rebuttal burden, but no burden to make a prima facie showing of need.
We
acknowledge that pilots filed a Rule 56(f) affidavit in response to the motions
for protective orders. This was an inappropriate response on their part. Pilots
did not have the burden to make a Rule 56(f) showing to counter the Rule 26(c)
motions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - [**104]
"Upon
motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good
cause shown," a district court is authorized to "make any order which justice
requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
or undue burden or expense." F.R.Civ.P. 26(c). In their motions for protective
orders, the defendants gave several reasons why this discovery was not needed
prior to the resolution of the summary judgment motions which, if granted, would
preclude the need for the discovery altogether. They correctly stated that no
discovery was needed to resolve the motions to dismiss under F.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Such motions are decided on the face of the complaint. Defendants also
argued that the summary judgment motions could be decided as a matter of law on
the basis of the undisputed facts already before the court. They alleged that
the timing of the depositions -- coming as they did after the grant of a
courtesy continuance to respond to the motions -- was evidence of bad faith.
Finally, they argued that since the discovery was not needed to resolve the
summary judgment motions -- and thus perhaps [*436] not needed at all -- the depositions would be
[**105] unduly expensive and burdensome.
We find that by these arguments ALPA, TACA and Huttinger met their
burden of showing, prima facie, why a protective order was warranted --
that is, why the discovery sought would be unduly burdensome and expensive. Thus
the burden reverted to the pilots, on rebuttal, to show a need for the
depositions such that their burden and expense would not be "undue." Pilots did
respond. They argued that the case was still in a "preliminary stage" given the
complexity of the legal issues involved and that they had "always contemplated
discovery" but that the "early motions of the defendants simply required none."
Also they pointed to the fact that no pretrial discovery deadline had been set.
The protective order suspended activity until a decision could be made
on the summary judgment motion. The trial court sought to resolve an issue that
might preclude the need for the discovery altogether thus saving time and
expense. n114 In response to the movants' showing, the pilots failed to show the
protective order was unwarranted. They asserted no facts they hoped to adduce,
no genuine issues of material fact they hoped to create, no showing they hoped
to rebut. [**106] In fact pilots said they had
sufficient evidence to defeat the summary judgment motions and sought discovery
only to obtain "better" evidence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n114 Trial courts
possess broad discretion to supervise discovery. Pan-Islamic
Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 550 (5th Cir.1980), cert.
denied, 454
U.S. 927, 102 S. Ct. 427, 70 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1981).
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We
find that pilots' showing was insufficient. "'[A] plaintiff's entitlement to
discovery prior to a ruling on a motion for summary judgment is not unlimited
and may be cut off when the record shows that the requested discovery is not
likely to produce the facts needed by [the party] to withstand a Rule 56(e)
motion for summary judgment.'" n115
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n115 Williamson
v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th
Cir.1987), citing, Paul
Kadair, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 694 F.2d 1017, 1029-30 (5th
Cir.1983).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**107]
Discovery is not justified when cost and inconvenience will be its sole
result. n116 On the record before it, the trial court had to reach the decision
that it did reach. The procedural posture of the case and the showings of the
parties left it little choice. Whether the trial judge surmised that pilots
would not be able to defeat the summary judgment motions or whether he, like us,
saw sufficient disputed facts to preclude summary judgment is irrelevant. Under
the circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in the order staying
discovery until the summary judgment motions were resolved. n117
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
n116 See Washington
v. Norton Manufacturing, Inc., 588 F.2d 441, 447 (5th Cir.1979),
cert. denied, 442
U.S. 942, 99 S. Ct. 2886, 61 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1979) (discovery properly denied
where it "could not have added any significant facts and would only have been
expensive and burdensome . . ."); Wyatt
v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 n. 15 (5th Cir.1982) (clarifying
Washington).
n117 See Scroggins
v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir.1976) (no abuse of
discretion in limiting discovery to issues raised by the summary judgment
motions, although "the situation would be quite different if plaintiff had been
denied discovery which related to the summary judgment motion").
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - [**108]
Of course our finding that
the stay of discovery was not an abuse of discretion has no effect as to those
matters remanded. The parties are entitled to the full scope of discovery
generally available during preparation for trial.
VI.
Conclusion
Our opinion affirms in part, reverses in part, and
remands in part.
We affirm the trial court's holding that pilots' labor
law claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
As for ERISA, we
reverse the trial court's holding that the Plan was not in effect until April
15, 1985. On remand, we instruct the court to accept as a matter of law that the
Plan was in effect on February 1, 1982.
We reverse the court's holding
that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether ALPA, TACA, or
Huttinger had [*437] any fiduciary duties under
the Plan. On remand, we instruct the court to determine whether ALPA, TACA, or
Huttinger had any fiduciary duties with respect to the ERISA-based wrongs
alleged in the complaint. We also find as a matter of law that Huttinger had a
fiduciary duty to disclose information about the Plan when asked.
On the
RICO issues, we affirm the trial court's holdings that: (i) TACA is not a
[**109] RICO defendant; n118 (ii) pilots have
not properly alleged extortion or a violation of 29
U.S.C. § 186 as predicate acts; (iii) a pattern of racketeering activity was
alleged; and (iv) no association-in-fact enterprise existed.
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n118 We also find that ALPA is not a RICO defendant for purposes of the
§ 1962(c) claim.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We reverse the trial court and hold that
ALPA was a RICO enterprise. Finally, we find that genuine issues of material
fact exist with regard to the following allegations made by the pilots: (i) ALPA
and Huttinger are RICO persons and thus appropriate RICO defendants; (ii)
predicate acts of mail and wire fraud and an 18
U.S.C. § 664 violation occurred; (iii) a pattern of racketeering activity
exists; and (iv) ALPA constitutes an enterprise for RICO purposes. Because we
find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to each of the elements
essential to stating a valid RICO claim, we remand these issues to the trial
court for proceedings not inconsistent [**110]
with this opinion.
Lastly, we affirm the trial court's decision to grant
a protective order staying discovery pending its summary judgment decision. Our
affirmance of this order has no effect as to those matters remanded. We expect
that discovery will proceed on a normal course at that time.
AFFIRMED IN
PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-Appellees Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) and Charles J. Huttinger (Huttinger) petition this court
for rehearing in our opinion, Landry
v. Air Line Pilots Association International AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404 (5th
Cir. 1990) [slip op. 1821]. In Landry, we reversed the District
Court's grant of summary judgment to ALPA and Huttinger. n1 Although we remanded
the case to the District Court for a determination of several issues, we also
entered findings against ALPA and Huttinger as to the following: (i) "we
instruct the court on remand to accept as a matter of law that the [retirement
plan for the plaintiffs-pilots] was in effect on February 1, 1982" Landry,
901 F.2d 404, 417; and (ii) "we find as a matter of law that Huttinger had a
fiduciary [**111] duty to disclose information
about the Plan when asked." n2 Landry,
901 F.2d 404, 420.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 TACA International
Airlines, S.A. was also a defendant in that action. TACA's petition for
rehearing, however, has been denied.
n2 We also inadvertently stated:
"As we found above that Huttinger clearly did breach fiduciary duties, the
factual issues [as to whether 18
U.S.C. § 664 was violated] remain to be resolved." TACA at 432. We
intended to assert that "Huttinger clearly did possess fiduciary
duties." Obviously, however, in light of our discussion herein, we no longer
make any conclusive findings with respect to Huttinger's fiduciary duties,
except to hold that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether or not
he had any fiduciary duties. Factual issues also exist as to whether any
fiduciary duties which Huttinger may have had were breached.
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In their petition for rehearing, ALPA and Huttinger urge that on a
motion for summary judgment, the Court's [**112] role "is not . . . to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine
issue for trial." Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d
202 (1986); Mozeke
v. International Paper Co., 856 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1988). This court
went too fast in making findings against ALPA and Huttinger. Because they have
never been placed on notice of any need or obligation to respond to any of
plaintiffs' assertions (i.e., that a failure to respond [*438] could subject them to adverse factual findings or
to adverse legal determinations predicated on such factual determinations), as,
for example, they would have been had plaintiffs cross-moved for relief, the
effect of entry of factual findings against ALPA and Huttinger under these
circumstances deprived them of an opportunity to dispute the facts material to
the plaintiffs' claims. Fountain
v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 683, 69 S. Ct. 754, 93 L. Ed. 971 (1949); E.C.
Ernst, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 537 F.2d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1976).
Accordingly, we modify our earlier opinion to withdraw [**113] the two findings, supra. Instead, based
on the evidence discussed in Landry, we now hold that there was a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether (i) the retirement plan was in
effect on February 1, 1982, and (ii) Huttinger had a fiduciary duty to disclose
information about the plan when asked. On remand, after the parties have been
given a full opportunity to discover and present the evidence, these issues are
for determination by the trier of fact in accordance with our earlier opinion,
Landry
v. ALPA, 901 F.2d 404, as modified herein.
ALPA and Huttinger
have also questioned our use of 29
U.S.C. § 501(a) in the portion of our opinion which holds that a fact issue
exists as to whether there was a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 664 (a RICO predicate act). Section 501(a) imposes special
fiduciary duties upon officers of labor organizations. As we stated in our
opinion, see Landry
at 901 F.2d 404, 431 text accompanying note 98, a breach of special
fiduciary duties may be a violation of § 664. In order to clarify this holding,
we insert the following text at the end of the existing footnote 102, [**114] Landry
at 901 F.2d 404, 432:
We find that a fact issue exists as to whether Huttinger breached
any of the fiduciary duties imposed by 29
U.S.C. § 501(a). As we state, supra, "intentional breaches of
special fiduciary duties imposed by other statutes . . ." then 18
U.S.C. § 664 may give rise to liability under 18
U.S.C. § 664.
With respect to ALPA and
Huttinger's criticism of that portion of our footnote 87, Landry
901 F.2d 404, 429, which states that state law fraud may serve as a source
of substantive law for the mail fraud claim and the question of pre-emption
which they raise, we neither approve nor disapprove their position. The
resolution of this issue must await the development of all the facts before the
trier of fact.
In all other respects, the petition of ALPA and Huttinger
for rehearing is denied.