Joint Trustees of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Ass'n Pension Plan v. Ross , 574 F. App'x 768 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE No. 13-35071
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE &
WAREHOUSE UNION - PACIFIC D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR
MARITIME ASSOCIATION PENSION
PLAN,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff-counter-defendant,
JEANETTE PRITCHOW,
Defendant-cross-defendant -
Appellee,
v.
KIM E ROSS,
Defendant-cross-claimant -
Appellant.
JEANETTE PRITCHOW, No. 13-35074
Defendant-cross-defendant - D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-JLR
Appellant,
And
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE &
WAREHOUSE UNION - PACIFIC
MARITIME ASSOCIATION PENSION
PLAN,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant,
v.
KIM E ROSS,
Defendant-cross-claimant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
These cross-appeals from the entry of summary judgment in an interpleader
action concern a dispute regarding the distribution of survivor pension benefits by
the Joint Trustees of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union – Pacific
Maritime Association Pension Plan (“the Plan”). Kim E. Ross (“Mrs. Ross”)
appeals the district court’s award of 100% of Joseph E. Ross’s (“Mr. Ross”)
2
survivor benefits to Jeannette Pritchow, Mr. Ross’s former wife. Ms. Pritchow
appeals the denial of her request for attorneys’ fees. We affirm.
(1) The district court did not err in interpreting the Qualified Domestic
Relations Order (“QDRO”) agreed to between Ms. Pritchow and Mr. Ross as
awarding 100% of the survivor benefits to Ms. Pritchow. The plain language of
the QDRO states that Ms. Pritchow is entitled to “the entirety of the survivor
benefit payable pursuant to the Plan.” Although Washington law applies a
community property presumption that when a spouse continues to accumulate
pension benefits following divorce, the former spouse should receive only those
benefits that accrued during the marriage, state law does not mandate that
approach. See Chavez v. Chavez (In re Chavez), 909 P.2d 314, 316 (Wash. App.
1996).
Here, the QDRO is entirely clear with respect to survivor benefits, and so
overcomes any applicable presumption. Moreover, the QDRO elsewhere
specifically reflects Washington’s community property presumption, in its
treatment of pension benefits during Mr. Ross’s lifetime (which is what was at
stake in In re Chavez). The distinction between the treatment of pension benefits
and of survivor benefits confirms that the community property presumption was
not overlooked when the QDRO was entered. Instead, it was meant to apply to the
3
division of pension benefits paid while the primary beneficiary was alive, but was
not applicable to “the survivor benefit payable pursuant to the Plan” after Mr.
Ross’s death.
(2) The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys’
fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). Because Ms. Pritchow wholly prevailed
on her claims, the district court was not required to consider the factors identified
in Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446, 453 (9th Cir. 1980). See Nelson v.
EG & G Energy Measurements Grp., Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1392 (9th Cir. 1994). But
it was not an abuse of discretion to do so. Moreover, under the circumstances, it
would be unjust to award fees against the Plan, which, faced with a legitimate
dispute between competing beneficiaries, responded appropriately by filing this
interpleader action. See Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust, 746 F.2d 587, 589
(9th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.
4