Kelly St. Julian v. Joseph St. Julian , 472 F. App'x 698 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELLY ST. JULIAN, ) No. 10-55470
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 8:08-cv-00147-CJC-MLG
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
JOSEPH ST. JULIAN, an individual, )
)
Defendant – cross-claimant – )
Appellee, )
)
and )
)
METROPOLITAN LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New )
York corporation; BUSINESS EDGE )
SOLUTIONS LIFE INSURANCE )
PLANS, an ERISA Plan, )
)
Cross-defendants – Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted April 9, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,***
District Judge.
Kelly St. Julian appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to Joseph St. Julian on her claim seeking to impose a constructive trust over the
proceeds of an ERISA1 covered life insurance policy on the life of John St. Julian.
We affirm.
Kelly asserts that because she was John’s surviving, though estranged,2
spouse, she can claim a community property interest in the proceeds. However,
regardless of whether California would determine that Kelly had a community
property interest in the policy, this court has clearly held that the preemption
provision of ERISA3 precludes the imposition of a constructive trust upon the
proceeds. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461.
2
There can be no doubt that Kelly and John were living separately and that
Kelly had filed for a dissolution of the marriage.
3
29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).
2
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1492, 179 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2011). As we said, “a
state law constructive trust cannot be used to contravene the dictates of ERISA.”
Id. at 1061.4 That being so, the district court properly granted summary judgment
in favor of Joseph. While Kelly launches a number of attacks on Carmona’s
reasoning, we are bound by its holdings. See, e.g., Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d
1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
4
Carmona, 603 F.3d at 1062, did note that, perhaps, a constructive trust
could be used “to recover ill-gotten gains.” However, there is no indication that
Joseph’s gains were “ill-gotten.”
3