Elinor Otto v. Employee Ret. Income Plan , 667 F. App'x 660 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 28 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELINOR OTTO, on behalf of herself and No. 15-55987
all others similarly situated,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:14-cv-05426-JAK-PLA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME
PLAN - HOURLY WEST, FKA
Employee Retirement Income Plan of
McDonnell Douglas Corporation-Hourly
West Plan, an ERISA pension plan,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: VANASKIE,** MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, United States Circuit Judge for
the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Elinor Otto appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on
her ERISA claim in favor of her Boeing pension plan, the Employee Retirement
Income Plan - Hourly West (the Plan). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
The text of the Plan does not unambiguously require that active employees’
minimum payments be annually increased to the product of the employees’ years
of service and applicable rate from the previous year. The Plan text is ambiguous
as to whether the term “Accrued Benefit determined or redetermined as of the
immediately preceding December 31” includes the actuarial reduction to the
Accrued Benefit. The Plan’s interpretation including the reduction is reasonable,
and consistent with its stated purpose of providing income after retirement. See
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 486 (2006) (“Interpretation of a word or
phrase depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and
context of the statute . . . .”). The Plan did not abuse its discretion in determining
Otto’s benefits. See McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099, 1113 (9th Cir.
2000).
AFFIRMED.
2