Solis v. Explore General, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE: 26 Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment in the alternative, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/22/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor,
United States Department of Labor,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EXPLORE GENERAL, INC., a California )
corporation; JAIME M. GONZALEZ, an
)
individual; PAUL K. GONG, an individual; )
and EXPLORE GENERAL, INC. 401(K) )
PROFIT SHARING PLAN, an employee
)
benefit plan,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:10-cv-01157-AWI-JLT
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN THE
ALTERNATIVE
(Docs. 26-34)

19
20

I. INTRODUCTION

21
22

Plaintiff United States Department of Labor has filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment or partial summary judgment in the alternative against

24

defendants Explore General, Inc., Jaime M. Gonzalez and Paul K. Gong. Having reviewed the

25

pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the Court finds there are

26

no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

27

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment.

28

1

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2
3

On June 25, 2010, plaintiff Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of

4

Labor (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) filed its complaint against defendants Explore General,

5

Inc. (“Explore General”), Jaime M. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), Paul K. Gong (“Gong”) and Explore

6

General, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (“the Plan”), asserting one cause of action for violations of

7

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.1 In the

8

complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

“4. The Explore General, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the ‘Plan’ or ‘401(k) Plan’)
is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA § 3(3), 29 U.S.C. §
1002(e), which is subject to the provisions of Title I of ERISA pursuant to ERISA
§ 4(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a). [¶] 5. . . . Defendant Explore General, Inc. (‘Explore
General’ or ‘Company’), was and is the sponsor, Named Fiduciary, and Plan
Administrator of the 401(k) Plan . . . . [¶] 6. . . . Defendant Jaime M. Gonzalez, was
and is the President and owner of Explore General; exercised discretionary authority
and control respecting the management and disposition of the 401(k) Plan and its
assets; exercised discretionary authority and responsibility in the administration of
the 401(k) Plan, was and is a fiduciary of the Plan . . . and was and is a party in
interest to the Plan . . . . [¶] 7. On or about August 19, 2005, Mr. Gonzalez appointed
Paul K. Gong the primary Plan administrator of the Plan. Mr. Gong was a vice
President of Explore General until approximately December 2007, when he separated
from the Company. After his appointment as primary Plan administrator, and until
his separation from the Company, Mr. Gong exercised discretionary authority and
control respecting the management and disposition of the 401(k) Plan and its assets,
exercised discretionary authority and responsibility in the administration of the
401(k) Plan, was a fiduciary of the Plan . . . and was a party in interest to the Plan[.]”

18
Plaintiff further alleges:
19
20
21
22
23
24

“16. During the period of January 1, 2002 through at least March 2005, Defendant
Jaime Gonzalez and Explore General caused Explore General to withhold
approximately $76,000 from employees’ pay for salary reduction contributions to the
401(k) Plan, but failed to timely remit the amounts so withheld into the 401(k) Plan’s
account, and instead retained and commingled the withheld contributions with the
company’s accounts and used the amounts withheld for non-Plan purposes prior to
remitting the contributions late. [¶] 17. The 401(k) Plan’s governing Plan documents
required that employee contributions be remitted to the Plan on the earliest date that
they could reasonably be segregated from the assets of Explore General, the
Employer, but no later than the fifteenth business day of the month following the
month in which the Contributions would have been paid in cash to the participant.

25
26

1

27

Plaintiff alleged that the 401(k) Plan was named as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 19(a) solely to ensure complete relief could be granted.

28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Based on a review of the Employer’s demonstrated pattern and practice, the
employee contributions so withheld from the employees’ pay could have reasonably
been segregated from Explore General’s assets within ten business days.”
Plaintiff further alleges:
“19. The 401(k) Plan’s governing Plan documents required Explore General to make
mandatory employer/prevailing-wage contributions to the Plan for employees
working on projects covered by the schedule published by the U.S. Department of
Labor and/or State Department of Labor indicating the minimum hourly wage and
fringe benefits (including retirement benefits) required to be paid to employees
working on jobs contracted by governmental entities. [¶] 20. As the Plan
Administrator and the Named Fiduciary, Explore General had a duty to appoint a
trustee of the Plan with the full discretion, responsibility and authority to collect and
remit contributions owed to the Plan. [¶] 21. The Plan documents do not identify a
Trustee. [¶] 22. On or about August 19, 2005, Jaime Gonzalez signed a letter
requesting that the third party administrator of the Plan remove Yolanda Delgado as
Trustee, and James Buffo as primary administrator. While the letter appointed Paul
Gong as the primary plan administrator, it did not appoint a new Trustee. Upon
information and belief, no new Trustee was appointed.”

11
Plaintiff further alleges:
12
13
14
15
16

“23. During the period from December 1, 2002 through at least March 2005,
Defendants Explore General and Jaime Gonzalez, with pervasive control over the
administration of the Plan and as a functional fiduciary thereto and as a co-fiduciary
of the Plan, caused mandatory employer/prevailing-wage contributions in the amount
of approximately $194,000 not to be timely collected as required by the Plan and by
the contracts with governmental entities, and instead allowed the funds to be retained
and commingled with Company assets and used for non-Plan purposes. Based on
information provided by Explore General, approximately $114,000 in mandatory
employer/prevailing-wage contributions remains uncollected.”

17
Plaintiff further alleges:
18
19
20
21
22
23

“24. The Plan required the mandatory employer/prevailing-wage contributions to be
made to the Plan monthly, and to be made without regard to current or accumulated
net income, earnings or profits of Explore General. A review of the Company’s
assets indicates that the Company had the ability to pay said employer/prevailingwage contributions on or about the dates that they were due. Moreover, Explore
General received payments, including payments for fringe benefits (including
employer/prevailing wage contributions) from governmental entities for the work
Explore General and its employees’ [sic] performed on various projects pursuant to
contracts. These payments from these governmental entities were greater than the
amounts Explore General owed its employees for hourly wages and
employer/prevailing-wage contributions owed pursuant on such projects.”

24
Plaintiff further alleges:
25
26

“27. Starting in at least August 19, 2005, Defendants failed to administer the Plan as
required by ERISA, including failing to distribute to participants Summary Plan
Descriptions, statements, and other documents required pursuant to ERISA §§ 101,

27
28

3

1
2
3
4
5

102, and 105, and failing to secure a fidelity bond as required by ERISA § 412. [¶]
28. Paul Gong signed a Board Resolution stating that Explore General would be
terminating the 401(k) Plan effective August 15, 2006. [¶] 29. Paul Gong signed
Amendment No. 2 to the Plan, dated August 22, 2006, as the Plan Administrator.
Amendment No. 2 directed the Plan to distribute all Plan assets and terminate the
Plan as promptly as possible. It also required the Plan Administrator to ‘make
reasonable efforts’ to locate each participant entitled to a distribution of benefits. [¶]
30. Defendants failed to take sufficient steps to provide for the . . . termination of the
Plan, including determining if participants received proper notice, how the funds
were distributed, or taking reasonable efforts to locate lost participants.”

6
On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment
7
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 against Explore General, Gonzalez and Gong. The
8
defendants did not file a written opposition.
9
10
III. LEGAL STANDARD
11
12
“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense – or the part
13
of each claim or defense – on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary
14
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
15
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial
16
burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of
17
‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
18
affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
19
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see Fed. R. Civ.
20
P. 56(c)(1)(A). “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party
21
need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” In re
22
Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (2010) (citing Celotex, supra, at p. 325). If
23
the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present
24
evidence establishing the existence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Matsushita Elec.
25
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538. A
26
court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must construe all facts and inferences in the light
27
28

4

1

most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255,

2

106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Even if the motion is unopposed, the movant is not

3

absolved of the burden to show there are no genuine issues of material fact (Henry v. Gill Industries,

4

Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993)), although the court may assume the movant’s assertions

5

of fact to be undisputed for the purposes of the motion and grant summary judgment if the facts and

6

other supporting materials show the movant is entitled to it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), (3).

7
8

IV. DISCUSSION

9
10

A. Overview of governing law – The gravamen of Plaintiff’s claim is the defendants breached

11

their duties as fiduciaries under ERISA. “Congress enacted ERISA to ‘protect . . . the interests of

12

participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries’ by setting out substantive regulatory

13

requirements for employee benefit plans and to ‘provid[e] for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and

14

ready access to the Federal Courts.’ 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b). The purpose of ERISA is to provide a

15

uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200,

16

208, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). Under ERISA section 404(a), a fiduciary of an

17

employee benefit plan must “discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the

18

participants and beneficiaries and – [¶] (A) for the exclusive purpose of [¶] (i) providing benefits to

19

participants and their beneficiaries; and [¶] (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the

20

plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). A fiduciary is also required to act “with the care, skill, prudence, and

21

diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and

22

familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like

23

aims” and “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such

24

documents and instruments are consistent with” ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B), (D). The duties

25

of ERISA fiduciaries “are the ‘highest known to law.’ ” Howard v. Shay, 100 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir.

26

1996) (quoting Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263, 272 n. 8 (2d Cir. 1982)).

27
28

5

1

Section 409(a) of ERISA imposes liability for breach of fiduciary duty: “Any person who is

2

a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties

3

imposed upon fiduciaries by this subchapter shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any

4

losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such

5

fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be

6

subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including

7

removal of such fiduciary.” 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). Thus, to establish the defendants’ liability for

8

breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff must show that (1) the Plan was an employee benefit plan under

9

ERISA; (2) the defendants were fiduciaries of the Plan; and (3) the defendants breached their duties

10

under ERISA, resulting in losses to the Plan. A civil action for appropriate relief under section 409

11

may be brought, as here, by the Secretary of the Department of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2).

12
13

1. The Plan was a covered plan – Plans covered under ERISA include “employee pension

14

benefit plans” and “pension plans,” which are defined as “any plan, fund or program which was

15

heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization,

16

or by both, to the extent that by its express terms or as a result of surrounding circumstances such

17

plan, fund, or program – [¶] (i) provides retirement income to employees, or [¶] (ii) results in a

18

deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of covered employment

19

or beyond, [¶] regardless of the method of calculating the contributions made to the plan, the method

20

of calculating the benefits under the plan or the method of distributing benefits from the plan.” 29

21

U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A). In the joint scheduling report filed December 8, 2010, the parties stipulated

22

that the Court had jurisdiction over this action pursuant to ERISA section 502(e)(1), 29 U.S.C. §

23

1132(e)(1). The stipulation notwithstanding, the evidence submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion

24

for summary judgment shows the Plan was a defined contribution single-employer 401(k) profit

25

sharing plan started by Gonzalez to provide retirement income and income deferral to Explore

26

General employees, and was therefore an employee pension benefit plan covered by ERISA.

27
28

6

1

2. Explore General, Gonzalez and Gong were fiduciaries to the Plan – ERISA fiduciaries

2

are limited to “named fiduciaries” and “functional fiduciaries.” Beddall v. State Street Bank and

3

Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1998). A named fiduciary is an individual “named in the plan

4

instrument, or who, pursuant to a procedure specified in the plan, is identified as a fiduciary (A) by

5

a person who is an employer or employee organization with respect to the plan or (B) by such an

6

employer and such an employee organization acting jointly.” 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(2). A functional

7

fiduciary is individual who “perform[s] at least one of several enumerated functions” under 29

8

U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Beddall, supra, at p. 18; see 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) (“[A] person is a

9

fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority or

10

discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or control

11

respecting management or disposition of its assets, (ii) he renders investment advice for a fee or

12

other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or

13

has any authority or responsibility to do so, or (iii) he has any discretionary authority or discretionary

14

responsibility in the administration of such plan”). In the December 8, 2010 joint scheduling report,

15

the parties stipulated that from 2000 to the present, Explore General and Gonzalez were functional

16

fiduciaries pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(i) and (iii) and parties in interest pursuant to 29

17

U.S.C. § 1002(14)(A), and that Gong was a functional fiduciary pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

18

1002(21)(A)(i) and (iii) and a party in interest pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(A) and (H) from

19

2005 to 2007. The parties further stipulated Explore General was the sponsor, employer, named

20

fiduciary and plan administrator and Gonzalez and Gong exercised discretionary control and

21

authority over the management of the Plan and disposition of the Plan assets.

22
23

B. ERISA violations – Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and

24

admissible evidence submitted, the Court first finds Explore General and Gonzalez failed to collect

25

mandatory employer prevailing wage contributions and remit them to the Plan, thereby breaching

26

their duty to act with care, skill, prudence and diligence and in accordance with the documents and

27
28

7

1

instruments governing the Plan in the management and disposition of Plan assets.

2

The evidence establishes Explore General contracted to do construction work on projects

3

financed by government agencies between 2001 and 2009. When it did work under government

4

contracts, it was required to pay its employees an hourly prevailing wage rate comprised of a base

5

rate and a fringe benefit rate. Explore General received full payment for work from the agencies that

6

included the fringe amounts, and from the inception of the Plan to March 4, 2005, Explore General

7

withheld the fringe amounts from its employees’ paychecks. Under the Plan, Explore General was

8

required to make a wage rate contribution to the Plan equal to the fringe benefit pension rate for each

9

Plan participant working on a government project multiplied by each hour of service the employee

10

performed since the last contribution date. The Plan required those contributions to be made

11

monthly, without regard to the current or accumulated net income, earnings or profits of Explore

12

General. Explore General and Gonzalez failed to remit those benefits to the Plan on behalf of the

13

employees, despite the fact that (1) Explore General sent certified statements of compliance to the

14

agencies indicating that the fringe benefit portion of the prevailing wage would be sent to a 401(k)

15

plan and (2) Gonzalez, as the president, owner and sole shareholder of Explore General and the

16

individual controlling Explore General’s bank accounts, had decision-making authority over whether

17

to collect the benefits and remit them to the Plan or force Explore General to do so.

18

Pursuant to ERISA, benefit plan assets “shall be held in trust” (29 U.S.C. § 1103(a)), “shall

19

never inure to the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing

20

benefits to participants in the plan and their beneficiaries” (id., § 1103(c)(1)). Plaintiffs have not

21

provided any Ninth Circuit authority establishing when unpaid fringe benefit contributions become

22

plan assets, and ERISA does not expressly define the term “plan assets.” Department of Labor

23

regulations, however, have defined plan assets to include “amounts (other than union dues) that a

24

participant or beneficiary pays to an employer, or amounts that a participant has withheld from his

25

wages by an employer, for contribution or repayment of a participant loan to the plan, as of the

26

earliest date on which such contributions can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general

27
28

8

1

assets.” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-102(a). Other circuits have adopted similar definitions. See U.S. v.

2

Whiting, 471 F.3d 792, 799 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The funds withdrawn from employee paychecks

3

represent an amount of money paid to employees in compensation. Once the contributions are

4

withheld, the money no longer belongs to the company; rather, the funds belong to the employees.

5

Therefore, employees have a present interest in the funds”); Kalda v. Sioux Valley Physician

6

Partners, Inc., 481 F.3d 639, 647 (8th Cir. 2007) (same); U.S. v. Grizzle, 933 F.2d 943, 947 (11th

7

Cir. 1991) (“[A]ssets of employee benefit plans subject to ERISA include employee contributions

8

to benefit plans which are withheld from employees’ paychecks and for deposit into their benefit

9

plans, even though the contributions have not actually been delivered to the benefit plan”); Bannistor

10

v. Ullman, 287 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2002) (same). In the Court’s view, under the foregoing

11

approach, the unpaid fringe benefit contributions owed to Explore General employees became Plan

12

assets as soon as they were due under the terms of the Plan. As noted above, those contributions

13

were due on a monthly basis. Thus, Explore General’s and Gonzalez’s failure to make fringe benefit

14

contributions to the Plan constituted a mismanagement of Plan assets.

15

The Court further finds Explore General and Gonzalez breached their fiduciary duties under

16

ERISA by failing to remit employee contributions to the Plan in a timely manner. The evidence

17

establishes Explore General employees could defer part of their compensation by making elective

18

contributions to the Plan, which would be allocated to their individual plan accounts. If they elected

19

to do so, the deferral amounts would be withheld directly from their paychecks. In 2002, Explore

20

General began withholding employees’ pay for elective deferral contributions. Department of Labor

21

regulations provide that once an employer has withheld benefit plan contributions from employees’

22

wages, those contributions become plan assets even before they are deposited into a plan. 29 C.F.R.

23

§ 2510.3-102(a). An employer must segregate employee contributions from the employer’s general

24

assets within a certain amount of time. See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-102(b). The regulations provide in

25

pertinent part: “[W]ith respect to an employee pension benefit plan as defined in section 3(2) of

26

ERISA, in no event shall the date [on which contributions can reasonably be segregated from the

27
28

9

1

employer’s general assets] occur later than the 15th business day of the month following the month

2

in which the participant contribution amounts are received from the employer (in the case of amounts

3

that a participant or beneficiary pays to an employer) or the 15th business day of the month following

4

the month in which such amounts would otherwise have been payable to the participant in cash (in

5

the case of amounts withheld by an employer from a participant’s wages).” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-

6

102(b)(1). Explore General did not remit all withheld amounts in accordance with this regulatory

7

time period, and was generally untimely in depositing elective contributions into the Plan, sometimes

8

by years. Although Explore General had deposited all elective contributions into the Plan by mid-

9

2005, for all contributions deposited late, Explore General never remitted lost earnings in addition

10

to the principal amounts. Nor did it pay lost earnings to its employees when it made individual

11

401(k) payouts. Furthermore, Gonzalez did not forward 401(k) contributions to the Plan.

12

The Court further finds Explore General, Gonzalez and Gong breached their fiduciary duties

13

under ERISA by failing to properly administer the Plan. As Plan fiduciaries, they were required to

14

obtain a fidelity bond for the Plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1112 (“Every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan

15

and every person who handles funds or other property of such a plan . . . shall be bonded as provided

16

in this section”); see 29 C.F.R. §§ 2550.412-1, 2580.412-1. They did not. As Plan administrators,

17

Explore General and Gong were required to provide each Plan participant with a summary plan

18

description. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1021(a)(1), 1022(a), 1024(b); see 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-2. Beginning in

19

2005, they failed to furnish summary plan descriptions. When the defendants decided to terminate

20

the Plan in 2006, they did not determine whether Plan participants had received proper notice of the

21

termination. See 29 U.S.C. § 1344; see also Peralta v. Hispanic Business, Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1073

22

(“[W]hile there is no express statutory requirement to notify participants in a timely fashion of plan

23

cancellation, such a requirement is implicit in the structure and purpose of ERISA, and is more vital

24

than the ordinary technical reporting and disclosure requirements. Employees are entitled to know

25

if they have or do not have an ERISA plan. Failure to so advise employees violates the obligation

26

of a fiduciary to discharge his duties in the interest of the participants”). Nor did the defendants

27
28

10

1

attempt to locate Plan participants who were no longer employed with Explore General but were still

2

owed a benefit. Gong also did not ensure that Explore General calculated fringe amounts owed to

3

its employees or that any amounts owed to employees were paid.

4

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has met its initial burden on summary judgment.

5

Because the defendants have not filed a written opposition, they have failed to raise genuine issues

6

of material fact. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes as follows:

7

1. Explore General and Gonzalez violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a) (benefit plan assets to be

8

held in trust); 1103(c)(1) (assets of plan not to inure to benefit of employer); and 1104(a)(1)(A) and

9

(B) (fiduciary shall discharge duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants);

10

2. Gonzalez violated 29 U.S.C. § 1105(2) (liability for enabling breach of co-fiduciary by

11
12
13

failing to comply with fiduciary duties under § 1104(a)(1)); and
3. Gong violated 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A) and (B) (fiduciary shall discharge duties with
respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants).

14
15

C. Remedies – As noted above, fiduciaries who breach their obligations under ERISA “shall

16

be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such

17

breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use

18

of assets of the plan by the fiduciary . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). In the December 8, 2010 joint

19

scheduling order, the parties stipulated that Explore General and Gonzalez are jointly and severally

20

liable for (1) the amount of fringe benefits they failed to collect and remit to the Plan and (2) the lost

21

opportunity income on the fringe benefits and elective deferral contributions they untimely collected

22

and/or failed to collect and remit to the Plan. Plaintiff has provided expert testimony and

23

calculations showing the Plan incurred losses of $319,158.39 in uncollected fringe benefits and

24

$200,442.75 in lost 401(k) earnings stemming from employee contributions that were never remitted

25

to the Plan, for a total loss of $519,601.14. Accordingly, the Court finds Explore General and

26

Gonzalez jointly and severally liable for remitting $519,601.14 to the Plan.

27
28

11

1

Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint an independent fiduciary with discretionary

2

authority over the administration and management of the Plan to oversee Plan transactions for a

3

period of ten years, with costs and fees to be paid by Gonzalez. Plaintiff may seek equitable relief

4

under sections 409(a) and 502(a)(5) of ERISA for the defendants’ violations. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a),

5

1132(a)(5); see Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 512, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996).

6

Having reviewed the pleadings of record and all competent and admissible evidence submitted, the

7

Court finds there is good cause to appoint an independent fiduciary, but that the costs and fees

8

required to administer the Plan should be awarded from Plan assets.

9

Lastly, Plaintiff requests the Court remove Explore General as fiduciary of the Plan and issue

10

a permanent injunction enjoining Explore General, Gonzalez and Gong from serving as fiduciaries

11

of, or service providers to, any ERISA-covered employee benefit plan. In the December 8, 2010

12

joint scheduling report, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff is entitled to such equitable relief.

13

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested.

14
15

V. DISPOSITION

16
17

Based on the foregoing, the motion of plaintiff United States Department of Labor for

18

summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court directs Plaintiff to prepare and submit a proposed

19

judgment consistent with this order for the Court’s approval no later than January 17, 2012.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated:
0m8i78

December 22, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

12