Lehr et al v. Perri Electric, Inc., et al

Filing 110

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 09/25/19 CONVERTING 91 Motion to Dismiss to Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING 91 Motion. Plaintiffs' claims against Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund are DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

PAUL LEHR and COLLEEN LEHR,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:17-cv-1188 WBS AC

v.
FRANK M. PERRI; PERRI ELECTRIC,
INC., a California Corporation;
PERRI ELECTRIC INC. PROFIT
SHARING PLAN; PERRI ELECTRIC
INC. PROFIT SHARING TRUST FUND;
and DOES 1-50,

18

MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiffs Paul and Colleen Lehr brought this action

23

against defendants Frank M. Perri (“Frank Jr.”), Perri Electric,

24

Inc. (“Perri Electric”), Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan,

25

Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund,1 and Does 1-50,

26

alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act of

27
28

The court refers to the Profit Sharing Plan and the
Profit Sharing Trust Fund collectively as “the Plan defendants.”
1
1

1

1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ § 1001 et seq.

2

the Plan defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule

3

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 91), which this court has

4

converted into a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 101).

5

Before the court is

This court described much of the factual and procedural

6

background to the lawsuit in its order granting summary judgment

7

to Frank Jr. and Perri Electric.

8

Summ. J. (“Summ. J. Order”) (Docket No. 56).)

9

granted Frank Jr.’s and Perri Electric’s motion on the grounds

(Mem. & Order: Re Mot. for
There, the court

10

that plaintiffs lacked statutory standing under ERISA.

11

at 6-13.)

12

clarified that he did not represent the Plan defendants, the

13

court limited its grant of summary judgment to Frank Jr. and

14

Perri Electric only.

15

(See id.

However, because counsel for those defendants

(Id. at 13.)

The Plan defendants eventually filed their own motion

16

to dismiss, though they did so after filing an answer.

17

Nos. 88, 91.)

18

for summary judgment because the motion to dismiss concerns a

19

substantive element of plaintiffs’ claims and matters outside the

20

pleadings.

21

Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 977 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]hether a

22

plaintiff has statutory standing in an ERISA action is a merits-

23

based determination, not a subject matter jurisdiction issue.”).)

24

(Docket

The court then converted the motion to a motion

(Docket No. 101 (citing Leeson v. Transam. Disability

Plaintiffs concede that the court has already

25

determined that they do not have statutory standing under ERISA

26

to assert their claims against Frank Jr. and Perri Electric, and

27

they apparently concede that this determination applies equally

28

to their claims against the Plan defendants, though they continue
2

1

to argue they have standing.

(See Pls.’ Opp’n 2 (Docket No.

2

100); Pls.’ Supp. Opp’n 4-6 (Docket No. 107).)

3

reaffirms its prior determination that plaintiffs do not have

4

standing with respect to their claims against Frank Jr. and Perri

5

Electric, and finds that this determination applies equally to

6

plaintiffs’ claims against the Plan defendants.

7

Order.)

8

the Plan defendants.

The court

(See Summ. J.

Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment to

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss

10

brought by Perri Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Perri

11

Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund (Docket No. 91) be,

12

and the same hereby is, converted to a motion for summary

13

judgment and is GRANTED.

14

Electric Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Perri Electric Inc. Profit

15

Sharing Trust Fund are hereby DISMISSED.

16

been dismissed, the Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment in

17

favor of all defendants.

18

Dated:

Plaintiffs’ claims against Perri

September 25, 2019

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

As all claims have now