2018-4-11 NPWU Severance Plan Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-03057 Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:1
1 RALPH M. PHILLIPS, ESQ. (SBN 64481)

2 LEWIS N. LEVY, ESQ. (SBN 105975)
DANIEL R. BARTH, ESQ. (SBN 274009)
3 LEVY PHILLIPS, APC
4 20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 320
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
5 Telephone: (818) 797-5777
6 Email: rmp@levyphillipslaborlaw.com
lnlevy@levyphillipslaborlaw.com
7
dbarth@levyphillipslaborlaw.com
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ROBERT AGUILAR; ADRIAN J. CASE NO.: 2:18-cv-03057
14 AGUIRRE; EMILIO AGUIRRE;
JUAN ALARCON; NANCY ALAS; COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
15
MICHAEL ALLEN; JORGE OF ERISA:
16 ALVAREZ; RICARDO AMARO;
DERRICK ANDERSON; JARED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
17
ANDREWS, JR.; ANDREW DUTY; BREACH OF PLAN
18 ARELLANO; CARLOS J. DOCUMENTS; FAILURE TO
ARELLANO; ENRIQUE ARELLANO; TRANSFER PLAN ASSETS;
19
PORTER ASHLEY; JAIRO ATIENZO; DISCRIMINATORY
20 ERNESTINA AVINA; CHRISTOPHER INTERFERENCE WITH
BALLESTEROS; JESUS BARRALES PROTECTED RIGHTS; AND
21
ROMERO; BAREN L. BAYLOR; FAILURE TO PROVIDE
22 DAVID K. BECKTON; YARED INFORMATION
23 BEKELE; RODNEY E. BELL;
WILLIAM A. BELTRAN; JUAN F.
24 BERNAL, JR.; ROBERT T. BERRIOS;
25 HEBER BORUNDA; DEON L.
BOWEN; FRANK M. BOWMAN;
26 LEOPOLDO BRAMASCO; MICHAEL
27 BROADNAX; DONALD C. BROWN;
28
1
COMPLAINT
1 DELROY BURNETT; DARYL

2 BUTLER; DELBERT BYRD;
DERRICK BYRD; PABLO JESUS
3 CABRERA; RALPH CACHO;
4 GUILLERMO CALLEROS;
HERCHELL CALLOWAY; PEDRO
5 CANALES; SANTO CARCAMO;
6 DANIEL C. CARDIEL; EDGAR
CARLOS BARRAZA; HUMBERTO
7
CARMONA; RENE CARMONA;
8 ARNULFO CASAS; HECTOR CASAS;
KESHAWN CASS; ANGEL M.
9
CASTILLO; ROGER CASTILLO;
10 JACOB K. CASTRO; FLORENTINO
CAZAREZ; ORLANDO CAZAREZ;
11
IGNACIO CEDANO; ANA LUISA
12 CHACON; CHAMROEUN CHAING;
CARL CHAVEZ; DAVID A.
13
CHAVIRA; NELSON CHHAN;
14 DANIEL CISNEROS; TYRONE
CLARDY, JR.; EFREN CLIMACO-
15
MENDOZA; JOSE COCA; ALEX
16 CONTRERAS; DAVID CONTRERAS;
GUADALUPE CONTRERAS; JOSE
17
CONTRERAS; JUMANE COOPER;
18 JOSEPH E. CORTES; JOSE LUIS
CORTEZ; REGINALD D.
19
CRANDELL; KAWON CRAYTON;
20 DEON DANIELS; JORGE A.
DAVALOS; ERSKINE DAVIS;
21
HAYWARD T. DAVIS; ROSENDO DE
22 LA CRUZ; KARL DE LA TORRE;
RICK DEAUBE; JOSE DELGADO;
23
MIKE DELGADO; DAMONE DENT;
24 CHARLES DESMOND, JR.; CELSO
DIAZ; GILBERT DIAZ; JUAN J.
25
DIAZ; MARCUS DIXON; DARIUS
26 DRAFTON; OBED DUARTE;
RONALD DUHON; CHRISTOPHER
27
EATMON; REGINALD EBERHARDT;
28
2
COMPLAINT
1 CARL D. ELLISON; JULIA

2 ENRIQUEZ; LETICIA ENRIQUEZ –
GIL; RONALD ERWING; MARIA
3 ESPINO PORTILLO; LUIS
4 ESPINOZA; JORGE A. ESQUIVEL;
OSCAR O. ESQUIVEL; EDUARDO
5 ESTRADA; FRANK ESTRADA;
6 DANIEL C. FELIX, SR.; MARCO A.
FERNANDEZ; JONATHAN FINNEY;
7
JESUS P. FITCH; JONATHAN
8 FLORES; LUIS X. FLORES; MARCOS
A. FLORES; VERULO FLORES; JOSE
9
ISAAC FLORES, JR.; RICHARD
10 FLOWERS; EARL FLOYD; JOSE
FONSECA; MARVIN FRANCO;
11
RODERICK D. FRANK; ARTURO
12 FRIAS; PAUL GAMEZ; ROGELIO
GANDARA, JR.; FRANCISCO G.
13
GARCIA; HOWARD E. GARCIA;
14 MCDUFFIE GARRETT; DELVONTE
GIBBS; GONZALO GIL; DENNIS
15
GILLESPIE; CASSIDY GLASPIE;
16 HENRY GOMEZ; MILTON E.
GOMEZ; ADRIAN GONZALEZ;
17
DYANA C. GONZALEZ; NOE
18 GONZALEZ; TYREE GRAHAM;
RASIM GRCIC; GARY GREEN;
19
JOHNNY N. GUTIERREZ; JUAN G.
20 GUTIERREZ; LEVIN A. GUTIERREZ;
JOHN M. GUZMAN; JAMAAL
21
HANEY; STEVEN HARRIS; DENNIS
22 L. HARVILLE, JR.; FATEH
HASBELLAOUI; ADRIAN
23
HERNANDEZ; ADRIAN
24 HERNANDEZ; ARMANDO E.
HERNANDEZ; FRANCISCO
25
HERNANDEZ; HENRY D.
26 HERNANDEZ; RUBEN
HERNANDEZ; JORGE HERRERA;
27
KYIN HLIANG; LINDSEY HOGAN;
28
3
COMPLAINT
1 TYRONE W. HOLMES, JR.;

2 LEONDRA L. HOLT; ERIC HUDSON;
DANIEL HUERTA; REGINALD
3 JACKSON; JEFFERY L. JEFFERSON;
4 BERT A. JENNINGS; JAVIER G.
JIMENEZ; DAVID LEE JOLLEY, JR;
5 GARLAND V. JONES, JR.;
6 BERNARDO ANTHONY JUAREZ;
GREGORIO JUAREZ; DWAYNE
7
KELLEY; NICHOLAS KENNEDY
8 WILLIAMS; AMANIAS KIDANE;
JOHNNY T. KNIGHT; ROBERT S.
9
KNIGHT; JOHN DAVE LACANILAO;
10 ARTUR LALOYAN; ALONSO
LANDEROS; JUAN LANDEROS;
11
DIRK D. LAWRENCE; LESLIE
12 LAWRENCE; JAMES M. LEE;
TRAVIS LEE; ANDREW P. LEON;
13
DAVID M. LEON; RUPERTINO
14 LEON; ALEX F. LOPEZ; EDWARD G.
LOPEZ; ERIC LOPEZ; EVLALIO
15
LOPEZ HERNANDEZ; ISRAEL
16 LOPEZ SOTELO; PEDRO J. LOPEZ,
JR.; HECTOR JAIME LUNA; FIDEL
17
MAGALLON; THEODORE MALONE;
18 LUIS MANZO; DANI MARCOS;
HUGO MARISCAL; BENJAMIN
19
MARTINEZ; JOE L. MARTINEZ;
20 RAUL R. MARTINEZ; MIGUEL
MATURINO; MOONNEY MAY;
21
MAURICE MCCOY; MELVIN
22 MCCOY; DESHON B. MCCRAY;
TIMOTHY MCKINLEY, JR.;
23
MARLON MCNEIL; ANGEL MEJIA;
24 SERGIO MEJIA; MARGIE
MELENDEZ; JESUS MENCHACA;
25
FRANCISCO J. MENDEZ; ROMAN
26 MENDOZA; EDWARD MENIEFIELD;
MAKONNEN MILES; FRANK
27
MIRAMONTES;
28
4
COMPLAINT
1 RAYMOND MONTANEZ; ROGELIO

2 MONTIEL; DONALD R. MOORE;
VINCENT A. MOORE; CEDRIC
3 MOORE, JR.; GILBERT MORA, JR.;
4 GILBERT R. MORA, SR.; FELIPE
MORALES; LEONEL MORENO;
5 SIMON MORENO; ANGEL ERICK
6 MORENO-VICTORIA; MIGUEL A.
MORGAN; OLAREWAJU MOSES;
7
JULIO MOYA; DARETH MUK;
8 VIRGUS MUNNS; FRANCISCO A.
MUNOZ; JUAN DANIEL MUNOZ;
9
SERGIO MUNOZ; ANTHONY E.
10 MURPHY; CARLOS NAVARRO;
MIGUEL NAVARRO; ROBERT
11
NEAL; BYRON C. NELSON, SR.;
12 GLENN O'CLARAY; ROBERT J.
OROZCO; HECTOR ORTEGA;
13
ISAIAS ORTEGA; ALEJANDRO A.
14 ORTEGA PICON; HECTOR L. ORTIZ;
RODRIGO ORTIZ; ALEXIS
15
OSEGUERA; AGUSTIN OSORNIO;
16 ROBIN M. OWENS; LOUIE
PALACIOS, JR.; ARMANDO
17
PADILLA, JR.; GINO PALACIOS;
18 DARRYL PALMER; RODRIGO
PASTRANO; STEVEN PEREZ;
19
NATHAN PHORNSOVANN; JOSE
20 PINEDA; MIGUEL PIZANA; RYAN
PLASCENCIA; DAMIAN POLK;
21
GILBERT POSADA; GREGORY
22 POSTELL; PRAYONG POUEY;
ROLANDO POYAOAN;
23
CHRISTOPHER PRATER; JOSE M.
24 PRECIADO; IVAN RABB;
SANTIAGO RAFAEL; LEON
25
RAILBACK; OCTAVIO RAMIREZ;
26 PABLO M. RAMIREZ; MICHAEL
RAMOS; ADRIAN RECENDEZ;
27
28
5
COMPLAINT
1 GREGORY REYES; ANTONIO

2 REYNOLDS; JUAN RIVAS;
MATTHEW RIVERS; BARRY J.
3 ROBINSON; EMMETT ROBINSON;
4 GREGORY L. ROBINSON; GLORIA
ROBLES; JEREMY H. RODRIGUEZ;
5 JOHNNY E. RODRIGUEZ; JOSE A.
6 RODRIGUEZ; MARTHA DOLORES
RODRIGUEZ; JESUS RODRIGUEZ,
7
JR.; RONNIE ROLLAND; VICTOR
8 ROMERO; REYMUNDO ROSAS;
ERNIE ROYBAL; SILVESTRE S.
9
RUBIO; PEDRO H. RUIZ;
10 RIGOBERTO RUIZ, JR; SAMUEL
SAAVEDRA; CARLOS VICTOR
11
SAENZ; ALFRED SALAS; ROBERT
12 SALAZAR; ANTHONY R. SALAZAR,
JR.; DAVID SALINAS; JOSE
13
SANCHEZ; WAYNE SANCHEZ;
14 JESSE SANDERS; FRANCISCO
SEPULBEDA; ALFRED SEPULVEDA;
15
JESUS SEPULVEDA; DEMETRIUS
16 SHANKS; CESAR SILVA; ARYEL
SILVEYRA; MARQUES SIMON;
17
RONZEL SIMPSON; JESSE L. SMITH;
18 DARRIN L. SNODDY; RAYMOND
SNOWDEN, III; LUIS M. SOTO;
19
KWOK CHE SUNG; ARTURO
20 TALAVERA; STEPHEN TAN;
AARON TANNER; WILLIE TATUM,
21
JR.; COLLINS THOMAS; SHARECE
22 THOMAS; REGINALD TINSLEY, JR.;
IGNACIO TOPETE; KHELIL TOUDJI;
23
TALAVOU TUSA; DEON TYLER;
24 GREGORY DEAN TYSON; EDDER
UMANA; FRANCISCO J. VALADEZ;
25
JUAN VALLE; LEONARD VALLES;
26 JUAN A. VASQUEZ; JUAN C.
VASQUEZ; ANTONIO VELOZ; JUAN
27
VELOZ; MICHAEL VICKS;
28
6
COMPLAINT
1 MIGUEL A. VILLALOBOS;
2 BRIAN VILLARREAL; JESUS
VILLARREAL; JIELI WANG;
3 LEONARD WASHINGTON;
4 LOUIE WATKINS; MICHAEL J.
WILCHER; DONNIE R. WILLIAMS;
5 JOSE L. WITRAGO, JR.; ROBERT L.
6 WOODS; JERRY WRIGHT, JR.;
ALEXIS YEE-CRUZ; BOUNTAR
7
YORN; PRAYATH YORN; SERGIO
8 ZINTZUN
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
12 NATIONAL PRODUCTION
WORKERS UNION SEVERANCE
13
TRUST PLAN; JOSEPH VINCENT
14 SENESE, ROSIE GIBSON, JOSE
DIAZ, JAMES MALLOY, SCOTT
15
GORE, and/or their successors,
16 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR
CAPACITIES AS THE BOARD OF
17
TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL
18 PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION
SEVERANCE TRUST PLAN; and
19
JAMES MELTREGER, and/or his
20 successor, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HIS CAPACITY AS PLAN
21
MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL
22 PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION
SEVERANCE TRUST PLAN,
23
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record herein, allege as follows:

2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) and (f), 29
4
U.S.C. § 1451, and 28 U.S.C. §133l.
5
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 29
6
U.S.C. § 1132(e), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims
7
occurred within this District, Defendants may be found in this District, Defendants
8
regularly communicate with participants in this District, and the breaches alleged
9
herein occurred in this District.
10
NATURE OF THE CASE
11
3. This case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
12
of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. It concerns the unlawful refusal of
13
Plaintiffs’ prior pension plan, the National Production Workers Union Severance
14
Trust Plan a/k/a National Production Workers Union Severance Trust Fund (the
15
“NPW Severance Plan” or “Severance Plan”), to transfer Plaintiffs’ account
16
balances to their current pension plan, the Supplemental Income 401(k) Plan (the
17
“SIP 401(k) Plan”), following a certified change in collective bargaining
18
representative. This case also concerns the NPW Severance Plan’s use of plan
19
assets for unlawful purposes. Finally, this case concerns the NPW Severance Plan’s
20
failure to timely provide plan participants with information as required by ERISA.
21
4. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, an order directing the
22
NPW Severance Plan to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances to the SIP 401(k) Plan
23
and to reform the Severance Plan’s governing documents to comply with law, as
24
well as other equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also seek
25
statutory penalties for the Severance Plan’s failure to provide information as
26
required by ERISA.
27
28
8
COMPLAINT
1
PARTIES
2
5. All of the individual Plaintiffs named in this Complaint (hereinafter the
3
“Plaintiffs”) reside in this District, with the exception of Plaintiff Miguel Villalobos
4
who resides in the County of San Diego. Plaintiffs are currently employed by
5
Parsec, Inc. (“Parsec”) at its Santa Fe Railway Intermodal Facility in Los Angeles,
6
California (“Los Angeles Facility”), and are represented for purposes of collective
7
bargaining by General Teamsters, Airline, Aerospace And Allied Employees,
8
Warehousemen, Drivers, Construction, Rock And Sand, Local 986, International
9
Brotherhood Of Teamsters (“Teamsters Local 986” or “Local 986”). Plaintiffs were
10
active participants in the NPW Severance Plan, a jointly administered labor-
11
management multi-employer trust plan governed by ERISA, during the period of
12
time they were covered by successive collective bargaining agreements (“former
13
CBAs”) between National Production Workers Union, Local 707 (“NPW Local
14
707” or “Local 707”) and Parsec. As required by the former CBAs, Parsec made
15
contributions to the NPW Severance Plan on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other
16
employees who were then covered by the former CBAs at its Los Angeles Facility.
17
By virtue of a change in collective bargaining representative – e.g.¸ the replacement
18
of NPW Local 707 with Teamsters Local 986 and the negotiation of an interim
19
successor CBA (“current CBA”) between Parsec and Local 986 – Parsec now
20
makes contributions to the Teamsters SIP 401(k) Plan on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
21
other Local 986-represented employees at the Los Angeles Facility. The SIP 401(k)
22
Plan is a multi-employer defined contribution pension plan governed by ERISA.
23
6. Only for purposes of Claims for Relief 9 and 10, below, which seek
24
penalties for the Severance Plan’s failure to provide information required under
25
ERISA, Plaintiffs are divided into two groups: Group 1 Plaintiffs and Group 2
26
Plaintiffs. Group 1 Plaintiffs consist of those Plaintiffs who made written requests
27
for information to which they are entitled under ERISA. Group 2 Plaintiffs consist
28
9
COMPLAINT
1
of those Plaintiffs who have not submitted written requests for information, but who
2
are nonetheless automatically entitled to certain information under ERISA. The
3
names of the Group 1 Plaintiffs and Group 2 Plaintiffs are divided and listed in
4
Exhibit “1,” attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein.
5
7. The NPW Severance Plan is a multi-employer defined contribution
6
“money purchase” pension plan as defined by ERISA. The Severance Plan’s assets
7
are held in trust by the Severance Plan. The purpose of the Severance Plan is to
8
provide retirement benefits to qualified participants and their beneficiaries in the
9
amounts and under the conditions specified in the January 1, 1985 Restated Trust
10
Agreement and Declaration of Trust (“Trust Agreement”), the Plan Document of
11
the Severance Plan, the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”), and in accordance
12
with applicable law. The participants in the Severance Plan have their own
13
individual accounts.
14
8. The following named individuals: Joseph Vincent Senese, Rosie
15
Gibson, James Malloy, Scott Gore and Jose Diaz, jointly and individually comprise
16
the Defendant Board of Trustees of the Severance Plan (“Defendant Board of
17
Trustees”). Defendant Board of Trustees is, and at all material times was, the Plan
18
Administrator and Plan Sponsor – as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(16)(A) and (B)
19
– of the Severance Plan. Defendant Board of Trustees is a fiduciary with respect to
20
the Severance Plan in its capacity as Plan Administrator, as a named fiduciary
21
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a) and/or owing to the exercise of powers and actions
22
described in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Defendant Board of Trustees has a duty to
23
administer the Severance Plan in accordance with the Trust Agreement, the Plan
24
Document, the SPD and all applicable laws.
25
9. Defendant Joseph Vincent Senese is, on information and belief, an
26
officer and/or employee of NPW Local 707 and a union-appointed trustee and
27
fiduciary of the Severance Plan charged with the duty to administer the Severance
28
10
COMPLAINT
1
Plan in accordance with all applicable laws and governing documents of the
2
Severance Plan.
3
10. Defendant Rosie Gibson is, on information and belief, an officer
4
and/or employee of NPW Local 707 and a union-appointed trustee and fiduciary of
5
the Severance Plan charged with the duty to administer the Severance Plan in
6
accordance with all applicable laws and governing documents of the Severance
7
Plan.
8
11. Defendant Jose Diaz is, on information and belief, an officer and/or
9
employee of NPW Local 707 and a union-appointed alternate trustee and fiduciary
10
of the Severance Plan charged with the duty to administer the Severance Plan in
11
accordance with all applicable laws and governing documents of the Severance
12
Plan.
13
12. Defendant James Malloy is, on information and belief, an employer-
14
appointed trustee and fiduciary of the Severance Plan charged with the duty to
15
administer the Severance Plan in accordance with all applicable laws and governing
16
documents of the Severance Plan.
17
13. Defendant Scott Gore is, on information and belief, an employer-
18
appointed trustee and fiduciary of the Severance Plan charged with the duty to
19
20
21
14. Defendant James Meltreger is, on information and belief, an officer
22
and/or employee of NPW Local 707 and the “Plan Manager” of the Severance Plan,
23
appointed by the Board of Trustees – pursuant to its discretion under the Plan
24
Document – to act on its behalf in connection with day-to-day operations and
25
administration of the Severance Plan. Defendant Meltreger is also referred to as the
26
“Fund Director” in the Severance Plan’s SPD. On information and belief,
27
Defendant Meltreger is a fiduciary of the Severance Plan charged with the duty to
28
11
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4
Allegations Regarding Defendants’ Failure to Transfer Plan
5
Assets to the Teamsters SIP 401(k) Plan
6
15. For a number of years, NPW Local 707 represented Plaintiffs and
7
other employees at Parsec’s Los Angeles Facility (“Los Angeles Bargaining Unit”).
8
Pursuant to successive former collective bargaining agreements between Parsec and
9
Local 707, Parsec made contributions on behalf of Los Angeles Bargaining Unit
10
employees to the Severance Plan. These contributions ceased in or about June 2017,
11
when Teamsters Local 986 replaced NPW Local 707 as the Los Angeles Bargaining
12
Unit’s certified bargaining representative and Parsec was no longer obligated or
13
permitted to make contributions to the Severance Plan.
14
16. Consistent with the defined contribution structure of the Severance
15
Plan, all participants (including Plaintiffs) have their own individual accounts. The
16
value of each participant’s account is based solely on employer contributions made
17
on the participant’s behalf and investment net income allocated to the participant’s
18
account, less allocable portions of Plan administration fees and investment losses.
19
Each participant’s right to receive benefits under the Plan is fully vested
20
immediately when she or he becomes a participant.
21
17. The Severance Plan is jointly administered, through the Board of
22
Trustees, by the National Production Workers Union and the various signatory
23
employers who contribute to the Plan. Representation on the Severance Plan’s
24
Board of Trustees is equally divided between the NPW Union and the employers;
25
two (2) trustees are appointed by the NPW Union and the other two (2) are
26
appointed by the employers. The NPW Union has also appointed an alternate
27
28
12
COMPLAINT
1
trustee. On information and belief, all of the union-appointed trustees are officers
2
and/or employees of NPW Local 707.
3
18. In 2016, Los Angeles Bargaining Unit employees who were
4
dissatisfied with Local 707’s representation launched a campaign to decertify from
5
Local 707 and certify Local 986 in its place. On or about September 1, 2016, Local
6
986 filed a Petition for Certification of Representative (Case No. 21-RC-183412)
7
with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A hard-fought election campaign
8
ensued, with Local 707 vigorously opposing the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit’s
9
effort to replace Local 707 with Local 986.
10
19. One of the major issues in the campaign was the Severance Plan.
11
Many members of the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit, including Plaintiffs, were
12
unhappy with the management and performance of the Plan. They wanted to leave
13
the Severance Plan, become participants in the Teamsters SIP 401(k) Plan, and
14
transfer their existing Severance Plan accounts to the Teamsters Plan. During the
15
campaign, Local 707 explicitly threatened Los Angeles Bargaining Unit members
16
by repeatedly telling them that, by voting for Local 986, they would lose complete
17
control over their accounts, which would stay within the control of the NPW Union,
18
and they would not be permitted to withdraw their money or otherwise transfer their
19
accounts to the Teamsters Plan.
20
20. A representation election was held on November 9 and 10, 2016. Local
21
986 prevailed, receiving nearly 70% of all votes cast. Thereafter, on or about March
22
15, 2017, Local 986 was certified by the NLRB as the exclusive bargaining
23
representative for the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit, replacing Local 707. In August
24
2017, Local 986 and Parsec entered into an interim collective bargaining agreement
25
which, inter alia, provided for Parsec to begin making contributions – retroactive to
26
June 22, 2017 – to the Teamsters SIP 401(k) Plan. Local 986 and Parsec also
27
entered into a Subscriber Agreement with the SIP 401(k) Plan that likewise called
28
13
COMPLAINT
1
for Parsec to begin making contributions to the SIP 401(k) Plan retroactive to June
2
22, 2017.
3
21. By reason of this certified change in collective bargaining
4
representative, the interim CBA between Parsec and Local 986, and the Subscriber
5
Agreement with the SIP 401(k) Plan, Plaintiffs are now participants in the SIP
6
401(k) Plan. Parsec has withdrawn from and ceased making benefit contributions to
7
the NPW Severance Plan on behalf of Los Angeles Bargaining Unit employees and
8
has commenced making contributions on their behalf to the SIP 401(k) Plan. The
9
SIP 401(k) Plan’s assets are held in trust by the SIP 401(k) Plan.
10
22. Following Local 986’s replacement of Local 707 as exclusive
11
representative for the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit, counsel for Local 986 and
12
Plaintiffs requested the Severance Plan transfer all assets attributable to the
13
individual accounts of Plaintiffs and all Los Angeles Bargaining Unit employees to
14
the SIP 401(k) Plan. Making good on Local 707’s threats, the Severance Plan
15
refused to do so. Defendants’ refusal to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances to the
16
SIP 401(k) Plan constitutes a violation of Defendants’ fiduciary duties and other
17
legal obligations for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 23 to 31, below.
18
23. Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have a fiduciary
19
duty to operate and administer the Severance Plan for the sole benefit of its
20
participants, including Plaintiffs. Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant
21
Meltreger have failed to do so by refusing to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances to
22
the SIP 401(k) Plan. Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger are
23
depriving these participants of a portion of their earned compensation that was paid
24
as benefit contributions to the Severance Plan.
25
24. Further, Plaintiffs are subject to and are now incurring duplicative
26
administrative expenses in maintaining separate accounts in both the Severance
27
Plan and the SIP 401(k) Plan. On information and belief, these costs include, but
28
14
COMPLAINT
1
are not limited to, the expenses of the plan administrator, plan manager, investment
2
manager, actuary, accountant, attorneys, fiduciary liability insurance policy, fidelity
3
bond, office rent, stationery, and printing. Each participant bears or has paid her or
4
his pro rata share of these administrative expenses. These duplicative
5
administrative expenses are eroding Plaintiffs’ retirement accounts, and are
6
depriving them of a portion of their compensation that was contributed on their
7
behalf by Parsec to the Severance Plan.
8
25. If Defendants are compelled to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances to
9
the SIP 401(k) Plan, a Plan they have now chosen, these duplicative fixed costs will
10
be eliminated and, consequently, there will be an increase in the value of each
11
Plaintiff’s account and/or an improvement in the quality and quantity of the benefits
12
provided to each Plaintiff. The asset base of the SIP 401(k) Plan will significantly
13
increase, which, in turn, will enable the SIP 401(k) Plan to provide larger benefits
14
to Plaintiffs who have selected the SIP 401(k) Plan as their retirement plan of
15
choice.
16
26. Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have also
17
breached their fiduciary duties, as well as ERISA’s anti-discrimination provisions,
18
by discriminating against participants for engaging in union activities protected by
19
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Plan Document of the Severance
20
Plan entitles participants to a distribution upon “Severance,” death or attaining the
21
age of 65. “Severance” is defined as separating from current employment or
22
transferring to a non-union position for the same employer. A change in bargaining
23
representative is not expressly included within the Plan Document’s definition of
24
“Severance,’ nor is it expressly excluded. Nevertheless, the SPD expressly states
25
that “a Severance does not occur if a Participant is employed by a Contributing
26
Employer that decertifies from the Union and the Participant remains employed
27
with the employer” (emphasis in original). In short, the Severance Plan expressly
28
15
COMPLAINT
1
permits, and has a practice of making, distributions to employees who leave the
2
union, either through appointment to a non-union position or termination of
3
employment, but not to employees who exercise their rights under the NLRA to
4
change unions, even though this is not expressly prohibited by the Plan Document.
5
This constitutes unlawful discrimination under the NLRA and, in turn, a violation
6
of ERISA’s fiduciary duty and anti-discrimination provisions, as well as federal
7
public policy.
8
27. Similarly, Defendants’ refusal to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances
9
to the SIP 401(k) plan following their selection of a new bargaining representative
10
is arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious, especially in light of the Severance Plan’s
11
authorization of account transfers when participants leave the union for any reason
12
other than decertification and/or to join another union.
13
28. Under ERISA, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger
14
owe Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty of loyalty and prudence. Requiring Plaintiffs to keep
15
their pension benefits in a plan jointly managed by a union they affirmatively
16
rejected is inconsistent with their choice of Local 986 as their bargaining
17
representative. The desire of Plaintiffs and other Los Angeles Bargaining Unit
18
employees to switch their accounts from the custody of the NPW Severance Plan,
19
with which they were very dissatisfied, to the Teamsters SIP 401(k) Plan was a key
20
motivating factor in their decision to replace Local 707 with Local 986. Defendant
21
Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have a fiduciary duty to honor
22
Plaintiffs’ clearly expressed wishes in this regard.
23
29. Likewise, the conduct of Local 707 during the representation election
24
campaign has irreparably impaired Defendants’ ability to carry out their fiduciary
25
duties of loyalty and prudence to Plaintiffs. Local 707 strenuously opposed Local
26
986’s organizing campaign and threatened Plaintiffs with a loss of any influence or
27
control over their individual retirement accounts if they left Local 707 for Local
28
16
COMPLAINT
1
986 because the Severance Plan would refuse to transfer the Los Angeles
2
Bargaining Unit’s accounts from the Severance Plan to the SIP 401(k) Plan. The
3
trustees appointed by the NPW Union comprise half of the Severance Plan’s Board
4
of Trustees, and, on information and belief, all of them are officers and/or
5
employees of Local 707. The Plan Manager of the Severance Plan (Defendant
6
Meltreger) is also, on information and belief, an officer and/or employee of Local
7
707. In light of Plaintiffs’ rejection of Local 707 following an acrimonious
8
campaign, as well as the anti-transfer threats repeatedly made by Local 707 during
9
the campaign, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have failed to
10
comply with their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to Plaintiffs.
11
30. Embodied within ERISA, including but not limited to 29 U.S.C. §
12
1415 [ERISA Section 4235], is a strong public policy favoring the transfer of plan
13
assets to participants’ new plan following a certified change in collective bargaining
14
representative. Also embodied within ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code is a
15
strong public policy favoring the portability of employee retirement accounts.
16
Defendants’ refusal to transfer Plaintiffs’ account balances to the SIP 401(k) Plan is
17
inconsistent with and violates the foregoing policies.
18
31. The Severance Plan has a history of engaging in prohibited
19
transactions and other unlawful actions that prevent Defendant Board of Trustees
20
and Defendant Meltreger from loyally and prudently managing Plaintiffs’ pension
21
assets. These prohibited transactions and unlawful actions include, but are not
22
limited to, the following:
23
a. In 2008, the Severance Plan engaged in a prohibited transaction when
24
its related National Production Workers Union Insurance Trust Fund
25
(“Insurance Trust Fund”) – which, on information and belief, is a
26
multi-employer welfare fund as defined by ERISA – made a deposit
27
error of $189,579 of Severance Plan employer contributions.
28
17
COMPLAINT
1
According to the Severance Plan’s Form 5500 for the year 2016, the
2
balance still owed by the Insurance Trust Fund to the Severance Plan
3
as of December 31, 2015 was $139,579, but the “Insurance Fund’s
4
financial position does not allow [it] to pay the money back in full at
5
this time.” It is unclear whether these funds have been or ever will be
6
repatriated to the Severance Plan.
7
b. Since 2009, the Severance Plan has approved over $400,000 in loans to
8
the Insurance Trust Fund in violation of its fiduciary duties to
9
Plaintiffs. These prohibited transactions, which are noted on the
10
Severance Plan’s Form 5500 for the year 2016, impermissibly redirect
11
money from Plaintiffs’ individual accounts, reduce investment returns
12
that otherwise would be attributable to Plaintiffs’ accounts and weaken
13
the overall financial condition of the Severance Plan.
14
c. On January 15, 2016, the United States Department of Labor (DOL)
15
filed suit against the Severance Plan and its then-Plan Manager
16
Anthony Monaco for breach of fiduciary duty in the United States
17
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The DOL Complaint
18
alleged that the Severance Plan had improperly used Plan assets to pay
19
expenses of the Insurance Trust Fund; failed to make distributions to
20
over 10,000 participants who had left the Severance Plan and who,
21
collectively, were owed over 13.5 million dollars in distributions; and
22
improperly used plan assets for purposes that were not related to
23
reasonable plan expenses or for the benefit of participants. On or about
24
January 22, 2016, a Consent Order and Judgment was entered in
25
which, inter alia, Monaco expressly admitted all of the allegations in
26
the Complaint; Monaco resigned as Plan Manager; and all losses
27
associated with the violations alleged in the Complaint were repaid to
28
18
COMPLAINT
1
the Severance Plan. See Perez v. Monaco et al., Case No. 16-CV-597
2
(2016).
3
d. In or about March 2012, the Severance Plan promulgated a new
4
defined contribution retirement plan called the National Production
5
Workers Union 401K Retirement Plan (the “NPW Retirement Plan”).
6
On information and belief, Defendant Board of Trustees is the Plan
7
Sponsor and Plan Administrator of the NPW Retirement Plan, and
8
Defendant Meltreger has been designated by the Board of Trustees to
9
act on its behalf in administering the NPW Retirement Plan. On
10
information and belief, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant
11
Meltreger have impermissibly used NPW Severance Plan assets,
12
including assets attributable to Plaintiffs’ individual accounts, to
13
establish and fund the NPW Retirement Plan. In doing so, Defendant
14
Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have engaged in prohibited
15
transactions in violation of ERISA and have breached their fiduciary
16
duties to manage the Severance Plan loyally, prudently and for the sole
17
inurement of plan participants.
18
32. To fulfill their fiduciary duties and other legal obligations under
19
ERISA, Defendants must effectuate a transfer of Plaintiffs’ Severance Plan
20
accounts to the SIP 401(k) Plan. The SIP 401(k) Plan is willing to accept these
21
transfers. In addition, Defendants must restore to the NPW Severance Plan all assets
22
that have been transferred to the NPW Retirement Plan, and any and all loans and
23
all other asset transfers that have been made to the Insurance Trust Fund.
24
Allegations Regarding Defendants’ Failure to Provide Information Required
25
by ERISA
26
33. Under ERISA, Defendants are required to provide annual pension
27
benefit statements to defined contribution plan participants who have their own
28
19
COMPLAINT
1
individual accounts but do not have the right to direct investment of the assets in
2
that account. Plaintiffs have their own individual accounts but do not have the right
3
to direct investments; therefore, they are entitled to annual pension benefit
4
statements. On information and belief, Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs
5
annual pension benefit statements at any time within the three (3) years prior to the
6
filing of this lawsuit.
7
34. Under ERISA, Defendants are required, within thirty (30) days of a
8
written request, to provide participants with, inter alia, a Summary Plan
9
Description, annual reports, trust agreement(s), contracts and any other instruments
10
under which the plan is established or operated. On or about July 19, 2017, nine (9)
11
of the Group 1 Plaintiffs – Rodrigo Pastrano, Antonio Veloz, Daniel Huerta, Fermin
12
Hernandez, Anthony Salazar, Miguel Pizana, Pedro Ruiz, Roman Mendoza and
13
Francisco Garcia – submitted identical written requests for the foregoing
14
information (the “July 2017 Information Requests”). A true and correct copy of one
15
such information request is attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated by
16
reference herein.
17
35. On or about August 31, 2017, all of the other Group 1 Plaintiffs
18
submitted requests for the foregoing information (the “August 2017 Information
19
Requests”) that were identical in substance to the information request reflected in
20
Exhibit “2.”
21
36. More than five (5) months later, on January 17, 2018, Defendants first
22
acknowledged receipt of some Group 1 Plaintiffs’ requests by sending them a letter
23
acknowledging their earlier requests and stating that Plaintiffs would not be
24
furnished with the requested documents unless they each paid a $15.00 copying fee.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
20
COMPLAINT
1
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Administer Plan for the Sole Inurement and
3
Exclusive Benefit of Participants, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1103(c)(1), 1104(a)(1)(A)(i))
4
(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
5
37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
6
allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
7
38. 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(1) [ERISA Section 403(c)(1)] provides that the
8
assets of a plan shall be held for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to
9
participants in the plan.
10
39. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(i) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A)(i)]
11
provides that a fiduciary must “discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in
12
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of
13
providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries.”
14
40. 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) [ERISA Section 409(a)] provides that any person
15
who breaches her or his fiduciary duties “shall be personally liable to make good to
16
such plan any losses to the plan resulting from such breach . . . and shall be subject
17
to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate,
18
including removal of such fiduciary.”
19
41. By not effectuating the transfer of Plaintiffs’ account balances from the
20
Severance Plan to the SIP 401(k) Plan, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant
21
Meltreger have breached their fiduciary obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. §§
22
1103(c)(1) and 1104(a)(1)(A)(i) [ERISA Sections 403(c)(1) and 404(a)(1)(A)(i)].
23
42. In addition, by engaging in the unlawful actions described in Paragraph
24
31, above, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have breached
25
their fiduciary obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1103(c)(1) and
26
1104(a)(1)(A)(i) [ERISA Sections 403(c)(1) and 404(a)(1)(A)(i)].
27
28
21
COMPLAINT
1
43. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a), 1132(a)(2), and/or 1132(a)(3)
2
[ERISA Sections 409(a), 502(a)(2), 502(a)(3)], Plaintiffs demand:
3
a. An Order directing Defendants to provide an accounting to determine
4
the value of each Plaintiff’s individual account and, thereafter, to
5
transfer those account balances to SIP 401(k) Plan;
6
b. An injunction requiring Defendants, upon request, to transfer the
7
account balances of all current Los Angeles Bargaining Unit
8
employees to the SIP 401(k) Plan;
9
c. An injunction requiring Defendants to reform the Trust Agreement,
10
Plan Document and/or SPD to (i) allow participants to transfer their
11
account balances to another multiemployer retirement plan following a
12
certified change in collective bargaining representative and (ii)
13
eliminate plan provisions that discriminate against participants based
14
on union activities, as well as an injunction requiring Defendants to
15
enforce the Plan terms as reformed;
16
d. A declaration that all NPW Severance Plan participants have the right
17
to transfer their account balances to another multiemployer retirement
18
plan of their choosing following a certified change in collective
19
bargaining representative;
20
e. An injunction requiring Defendants to restore to the NPW Severance
21
Plan all assets that have been transferred to the NPW Retirement Plan
22
and all loans and asset transfers that have been made to the Insurance
23
Trust Fund;
24
f. An Order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting of all
25
transactions, disbursements, and dispositions occurring in connection
26
with the Severance Plan and its assets, including but not limited to
27
detailed and specific information about: all asset transfers or
28
22
COMPLAINT
1
participant account balance transfers made by the Plan to any other
2
retirement plans, employee benefit plans or other entities; all fees and
3
expenses incurred by the Plan, and all loans made and received by the
4
Plan; and
5
g. An Order (i) removing Defendants Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy and
6
Gore as trustees of the Severance Plan; (ii) removing Defendant
7
Meltreger as Plan Manager of the Severance Plan; and (iii)
8
permanently enjoining Defendants Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy, Gore
9
and Meltreger from serving as trustees, fiduciaries or service providers
10
for the Severance Plan.
11
44. Plaintiffs have also incurred and continue to incur attorneys’ fees and
12
legal expenses and therefore seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
13
suit as available by law, including but not limited to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).
14
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Defray Expenses in Administering
16
Plan, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(ii))
17
18
19
20
46. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(ii) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A)(ii)]
21
provides that a fiduciary must “discharge his duties with respect to a plan . . . for the
22
exclusive purpose of defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.”
23
47. Defendant Board of Trustees’ and Defendant Meltreger’s failure to
24
transfer Plaintiffs’ accounts balances from the NPW Severance Plan to the SIP
25
401(k) Plan have caused Plaintiffs to incur duplicative administrative expenses in
26
maintaining both the Severance Plan and the SIP 401(k) Plan. As such, Defendant
27
Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have breached their fiduciary
28
23
COMPLAINT
1
obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(ii) [ERISA Section
2
404(a)(1)(A)(ii)].
3
4
5
their fiduciary obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(ii) [ERISA
6
Section 404(a)(1)(A)(ii)].
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plan Document and SPD to (i) allow participants to transfer their
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
COMPLAINT
1
d. An injunction requiring Defendants to restore to the NPW Severance
2
3
4
Trust Fund;
5
e. A declaration that all NPW Severance Plan participants have the right
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plan; and
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
///
27
///
28
25
COMPLAINT
1
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B))
3
4
5
6
53. 29 U.S.C § 1104(a)(1)(B) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(B)] provides that
7
a fiduciary must “discharge his duties with respect to a plan . . . with the care, skill,
8
prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man
9
acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of
10
an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.”
11
12
13
Meltreger have breached their fiduciary obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. §
14
1104(a)(1)(B) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(B)].
15
16
17
their fiduciary obligations imposed by 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B) [ERISA Section
18
404(a)(1)(B)].
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Trust Fund;
18
e. A declaration that all NPW Severance Plan participants have the right
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
COMPLAINT
1
2
Plan; and
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
(Failure to Administer NPW Severance Plan in Accordance with
14
Trust Agreement, Plan Document and Summary Plan Description,
15
29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and/or (a)(3))
16
17
18
19
60. Article II, Section 2.2(b) of the Trust Agreement states that Defendant
20
Board of Trustees shall use the Severance Plan to “pay and provide for severance
21
benefits in accordance with the Plan.”
22
61. Article IV, Section 4.4 of the Plan Document of the Severance Plan
23
states: “Under no circumstances shall any part of the corpus or income of the Fund
24
be used for or diverted to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of the
25
Participants or their Beneficiaries and the payment of the reasonable expenses of
26
administering the Plan and the Fund.”
27
28
28
COMPLAINT
1
62. Article IX, Section 9.1 of the Plan Document of the Severance Plan
2
provides: “The Trustees shall be the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator
3
shall discharge its duties in the interest of the Participants and Beneficiaries and for
4
the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to Participants and their Beneficiaries,
5
and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Plan and Trust. It shall
6
discharge its duties with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the
7
circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in like capacity and
8
familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like
9
character and with like aims.”
10
63. Article VI, Section 6.6 of the Plan Document allows for “direct
11
rollovers” of plan distributions. In pertinent part, it provides that “a distributee may
12
elect to have all or any portion of an eligible rollover distribution paid directly to an
13
eligible retirement plan specified by the distributee in a direct rollover.”
14
64. Article X, Section 10.5 of the Plan Document authorizes the transfer of
15
plan assets from the Severance Plan to another multiemployer retirement plan under
16
certain conditions. It provides:
17
18 If this Plan merges or consolidates with, or transfers in whole or in

19 part its assets and liabilities to any other plan of deferred
compensation maintained or to be established for the benefit of all or
20 some of the Participants of the Plan, the assets of the Trust applicable
21 to such Participants shall be transferred to the other trust only if (i)
each Participant in the Plan would remain entitled immediately after
22 the merger, consolidation or transfer to receive a benefit (determined
23 as if the plan then terminated) which is equal to or greater than the
benefit he would have been entitled to receive immediately before the
24
merger, consolidation or transfer (determined as if the Plan then
25 terminated); (ii) resolutions of the Trustees and of any new or
successor employer of the affected Participants shall authorize such
26
transfer of assets; and in the case of the new or successor employer,
27 its resolutions shall include an assumption of liabilities with respect to
28
29
COMPLAINT
1 such Participants’ inclusion in the new or successor employer’s plan;

2 and (iii) such other plan is qualified under Sections 401 and 501(a) of
the Code.
3
4 65. Article IX of the Severance Plan’s SPD broadly prohibits

5 discrimination. It provides: “No one, including any employer for which you work,
6 your union or any other person, may fire you or otherwise discriminate against you
7 in any way to prevent you from obtaining a pension benefit or exercising your
8 rights under ERISA.”
9 66. By not effectuating the transfer of Plaintiffs’ account balances from the
10 Severance Plan to the SIP 401(k) Plan, Defendants have breached the foregoing
11 terms of the Plan Document, the Trust Agreement, and the SPD.
12 67. In addition, by engaging in the unlawful actions described in Paragraph
13 31, above, Defendants have breached Article II, Section 2.2(b) of the Trust
14 Agreement and Article IV, Section 4.4 and Article IX, Section 9.1 of the Plan
15 Document.
16 68. The Severance Plan’s internal review and appeals procedures do not
17 apply to this claim for relief, but to the extent the Court may believe they do, such
18 internal remedies have been exhausted, would be futile, or are otherwise excused.
19 69. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and/or (a)(3) [ERISA Sections
20 502(a)(1)(B), (a)(3)], Plaintiffs demand:
21 a. An Order directing Defendants to provide an accounting to determine
22 the value of each Plaintiff’s individual account and, thereafter, to
23 transfer those account balances to SIP 401(k) Plan;
24 b. An injunction requiring Defendants to restore to the NPW Severance
25 Plan all assets that have been transferred to the NPW Retirement Plan
26 and all loans and asset transfers that have been made to the Insurance
27 Trust Fund; and
28
30
COMPLAINT
1
c. An Order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting of all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plan.
9
10
11
12
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Administer NPW Severance Plan in Accordance
14
With Trust Agreement, Plan Document and Summary Plan Description,
15
29 U.S.C. §§ 1104(a)(1)(D))
16
17
18
19
72. 29 U.S.C § 1104(a)(1)(D) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(D)] provides that
20
a fiduciary must “discharge his duties . . . in accordance with the documents and
21
instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents and instruments are
22
consistent with the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III.”
23
24
25
Meltreger have failed to act in accordance with provisions of the plan’s governing
26
documents described in Paragraphs 60 to 65, above: e.g., Article II, Section 2.2(b)
27
of the Trust Agreement; Article IV, Section 4.4, Article IX, Section 9.1, Article VI,
28
31
COMPLAINT
1
Section 6.6, and Article X, Section 10.5 of the Plan Document; and Article IX of
2
the SPD. As such, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have
3
breached their fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C § 1104(a)(1)(D) [ERISA Section
4
404(a)(1)(D)].
5
6
31, above, Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have failed to act
7
in accordance with Article 2.2(b) of the Trust Agreement and Article IV, Section
8
4.4 and Article IX, Section 9.1 of the Plan Document. As such, Defendant Board of
9
Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have breached their fiduciary duties under 29
10
U.S.C § 1104(a)(1)(D) [ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(D)].
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
c. A declaration that all NPW Severance Plan participants have the right
25
26
27
28
32
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
Trust Fund;
5
e. An Order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting of all
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Plan; and
13
f. An Order (i) removing Defendants Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy and
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
(Failure to Transfer Plan Assets, 29 U.S.C. § 1415 and Federal Common Law)
24
25
26
27
28
33
COMPLAINT
1
79. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1415(a) [ERISA Section 4235], an “old”
2
multiemployer pension plan is required to transfer plan assets to a “new” plan when
3
an employer has “completely or partially withdrawn from a multiemployer plan . . .
4
as a result of a certified change in collective bargaining representative . . . if
5
participants of the old plan who are employed by the employer will, as a result of
6
that change, participate in another multiemployer plan.”
7
80. In enacting ERISA, Congress empowered the courts to “develop a
8
federal common law of rights and obligations under ERISA-regulated plans.”
9
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 110 (1989) (internal quotation
10
marks and citation omitted). Consistent with this congressional intent, courts may
11
create federal common law under ERISA to fill gaps in the statutory scheme, cure
12
statutory ambiguities, and promote ERISA’s fundamental policies. See Salyers v.
13
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 871 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2017); Local 6-0682 Int'l Union of
14
Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers v. Nat'l Indus. Grp. Pension
15
Plan, 342 F.3d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2003).
16
81. Though Section 1415 is traditionally applied to transfers by defined
17
benefit plans, Section 1415 and ERISA’s statutory scheme embody a strong public
18
policy favoring the right of plan participants in both defined benefit and defined
19
contribution plans to transfer their account balances to a new retirement plan
20
following a certified change in collective bargaining representative. This public
21
policy should be equally applicable to defined benefit and defined contribution
22
plans.
23
82. Defendants have failed and refused to transfer the Los Angeles
24
Bargaining Unit employees’ plan assets to the SIP 401(k) Plan following Local
25
986’s lawful replacement of Local 707 as the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit’s
26
certified bargaining representative, Parsec’s withdrawal from the Severance Plan
27
with respect to the Los Angeles Bargaining Unit, and Parsec’s participation in the
28
34
COMPLAINT
1
SIP 401(k) Plan. As such, Defendants have violated 29 U.S.C. § 1415 and ERISA
2
federal common law.
3
83. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2), 1132(a)(3) and/or 1451(a)(1)
4
[ERISA Sections 502(a)(2), 502(a)(3), 4301], Plaintiffs demand:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
enforce the Plan terms as reformed; and
18
19
20
21
bargaining representative.
22
23
24
suit as available by law, including but not limited to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g) and
25
1451(d).
26
///
27
///
28
35
COMPLAINT
1
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2
(Discriminatory Interference with Protected Rights, 29 U.S.C. § 1140)
3
4
5
6
86. 29 U.S.C § 1140 [ERISA Section 510] provides, in pertinent part as
7
follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to . . . discriminate against a
8
participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the
9
provisions of an employee benefit plan, this subchapter . . . or for the purpose of
10
interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become
11
entitled under the plan [or] this subchapter . . . .”
12
13
Severance Plan to the SIP 401(k) Plan, Defendants have discriminated against
14
Plaintiffs for exercising their right to select a new collective bargaining and for the
15
purpose of interfering with Plaintiffs’ right to transfer their Severance Plan account
16
balances to the SIP 401(k) Plan. Through the foregoing unlawful conduct,
17
Defendants have violated 29 U.S.C. § 1140 [ERISA Section 510].
18
88. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and/or (a)(3) [ERISA Sections
19
502(a)(1)(B), (a)(3)], Plaintiffs demand:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
enforce the Plan terms as reformed; and
6
7
8
9
bargaining representative.
10
11
12
13
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
(Prohibited Transactions, 29 U.S.C. § 1106)
15
16
17
18
91. 29 U.S.C § 1106(a)(1) [ERISA Section 406(a)(1)] prohibits, inter alia,
19
Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger from engaging in the
20
“lending of money or other extension of credit between the plan and a party in
21
interest,” or “transfer[ring] to, or us[ing] by or for the benefit of a party in interest,
22
of any assets of the plan.”
23
92. 29 U.S.C § 1106(b)(1) [ERISA Section 406(b)(1)] prohibits, inter alia,
24
Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger from “deal[ing] with the
25
assets of the plan in [their] own interest or for [their] own account.”
26
93. 29 U.S.C § 1106(b)(2) [ERISA Section 406(b)(2)] prohibits Defendant
27
Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger from “act[ing] in any transaction
28
37
COMPLAINT
1
involving the plan on behalf of a party (or represent[ing]a party) whose interests are
2
adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or
3
beneficiaries.”
4
94. By using NPW Severance Plan assets, including assets attributable to
5
Plaintiffs’ individual accounts, to establish and fund the NPW Retirement Plan and
6
to make loans to the Insurance Trust Fund, Defendant Board of Trustees and
7
Defendant Meltreger have engaged in prohibited transactions in violation of 29
8
U.S.C. §§ 1106(a) and (b) [ERISA Sections 406(a), (b)].
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a. An injunction requiring Defendants to restore to the NPW Severance
17
18
19
Trust Fund;
20
b. An Order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting of all
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plan; and
28
38
COMPLAINT
1
c. An Order (i) removing Defendants Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
(Failure to Automatically Provide Required Information, 29 U.S.C.
12
§§ 1025(a), 1132(c)(1))
13
14
15
16
99. 29 U.S.C. § 1025(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires Defendant Board of Trustees
17
and Defendant Meltreger to provide annual pension benefit statements to all
18
participants. The pension benefit statements must contain the information described
19
in 29 U.S.C. § 1025(a)(2).
20
100. Within the three (3) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant
21
Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger have not provided Plaintiffs with
22
annual pension benefit statements as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a)(1)(A)(ii) and
23
(a)(2).
24
101. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) provides for penalties of $110 per day per
25
violation for Defendants’ failure to provide pension benefit statements in
26
accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1025(a).
27
28
39
COMPLAINT
1
102. Plaintiffs demand, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1),
2
penalties in the amount of $110 per day for each of them commencing three (3)
3
years prior to the filing this action and through the date of judgment.
4
103. Plaintiffs also demand, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1025(a),
5
1132(a)(1)(A), (a)(3) and/or (c)(1), an order requiring Defendant Trustees to
6
provide Plaintiffs annual benefit statements as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1025(a)
7
unless and until they no longer have account balances.
8
9
10
11
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12
(Failure to Provide Requested Information, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(1),
13
1024(b)(2), 1025(a) and 1132(c)(1)
14
(By Group 1 Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
15
16
17
106. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(1), 1024(b)(4), 1025(a) and 1132(c)(1),
18
collectively, require Defendant Board of Trustees and Defendant Meltreger to
19
provide participants, upon request, a copy of the Severance Plan’s SPD, the latest
20
annual report, a summary of material modifications, the trust agreement and any
21
other instruments under which the plan is established or operated, as well as annual
22
pension benefit statements.
23
107. On or about July 19, 2017, Group 1 Plaintiffs Rodrigo Pastrano,
24
Antonio Veloz, Daniel Huerta, Fermin Hernandez, Anthony Salazar, Miguel
25
Pizana, Pedro Ruiz, Roman Mendoza and Francisco Garcia sent Defendants a
26
written request for the foregoing information that were all identical in substance to
27
the information request reflected in Exhibit “2” hereto. On or about August 31,
28
40
COMPLAINT
1
2017, all of the other Group 1 Plaintiffs sent Defendants written requests for the
2
foregoing information that were all identical in substance to the information request
3
reflected in Exhibit “2.”
4
108. On or about January 17, 2018, Defendants sent some Group 1
5
Plaintiffs a letter acknowledging receipt of their earlier requests and stating that
6
Plaintiffs would not be provided the requested documents unless they each pay a
7
$15.00 copying fee.
8
109. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) provides for penalties of $110 per day per
9
violation for Defendants’ failure to provide the information requested by Plaintiffs
10
within thirty (30) days of such request.
11
110. Accordingly, the Group 1 Plaintiffs demand, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§
12
1024(b)(1), 1024(b)(4), 1025(a), 1132(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1), penalties in the amount
13
of $110 per day commencing on August 21, 2017 for the Group 1 Plaintiffs who
14
sent information requests on July 19, 2017 and commencing on October 1, 2017 for
15
the Group 1 Plaintiffs who sent information requests on August 31, 2017, and
16
through the date of judgment herein or until receipt by Plaintiffs of Defendants’
17
January 17, 2018 letter, if deemed appropriate by the Court.
18
111. Group 1 Plaintiffs also demand, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§
19
1132(a)(1)(A), (a)(3) and/or (c)(1), an order requiring Defendants to provide them
20
the information requested in their July 2017 and August 2017 information requests.
21
112. Group 1 Plaintiffs have also incurred and continue to incur attorneys’
22
fees and legal expenses and therefore seek to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and
23
costs of suit as available by law, including but not limited to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
41
COMPLAINT
1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray as follows:

4 1. For an Order directing Defendants to provide an accounting to
5 determine the value of each Plaintiff’s individual account and, thereafter, to transfer
6 those account balances to SIP 401(k) Plan;
7 2. For an injunction requiring Defendants, upon request, to transfer the
8 account balances of all current Los Angeles Bargaining Unit employees to the SIP
9 401(k) Plan;
10 3. For an injunction requiring Defendants to reform the Trust Agreement,
11 Plan Document and SPD to (i) allow participants to transfer their account balances
12 to another multiemployer plan following a certified change in collective bargaining
13 representative; and (ii) eliminate plan provisions that discriminate against
14 participants based on union activities, as well as an injunction requiring Defendants
15 to enforce the Plan terms as reformed;
16 4. For a declaration that all NPW Severance Plan participants have the
17 right to transfer their account balances to another multiemployer retirement plan of
18 their choosing following a certified change in collective bargaining representative;
19 5. For an injunction requiring Defendants to restore to the NPW
20 Severance Plan all assets that have been transferred to the NPW Retirement Plan
21 and all loans and asset transfers that have been made to the Insurance Trust Fund;
22 6. For an Order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting of all
23 transactions, disbursements, and dispositions occurring in connection with the
24 Severance Plan and its assets, including but not limited to detailed and specific
25 information about: all asset transfers or participant account balance transfers made
26 by the Plan to any other retirement plans, employee benefit plans or other entities;
27
28
42
COMPLAINT
1
all fees and expenses incurred by the Plan, and all loans made and received by the
2
Plan;
3
7. For an Order (i) removing Defendants Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy
4
and Gore as trustees of the Severance Plan; (ii) removing Defendant Meltreger as
5
Plan Manager of the Severance Plan; and (iii) permanently enjoining Defendants
6
Senese, Gibson, Diaz, Malloy, Gore and Meltreger from serving as trustees,
7
fiduciaries or service providers for the Severance Plan;
8
8. For penalties at the rate of $110 per day to each Plaintiff for
9
Defendants’ failure to automatically provide annual pension benefit statements;
10
9. For penalties at the rate of $110 per day per violation to each Group 1
11
Plaintiff for Defendants’ failure to provide information requested by the Individual
12
Plaintiffs, with each penalty item separately calculated;
13
10. For an Order requiring Defendants to provide (a) All Plaintiffs with
14
annual benefit statements, as required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a) unless and until they
15
no longer have account balances; and (b) All Group 1 Plaintiffs with the
16
information sought in their July and August 2017 information requests;
17
11. For interest as available by law;
18
12. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as available by law,
19
including but not limited 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g) and 1451(e); and
20
13. For such other equitable and/or remedial relief as the Court may deem
21
just and proper.
22
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
43
COMPLAINT
1 Dated: April 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

2
LEVY PHILLIPS, APC
3
5 By: /S/ Ralph M. Phillips

6 Ralph M. Phillips, Esq.
Lewis N. Levy, Esq.
7
Daniel R. Barth, Esq.
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert
Aguilar, et al.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44
COMPLAINT
Case 2:18-cv-03057 Document 1-1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:45
EXHIBIT 1
GROUP 1 PLAINTIFFS
Juan Alarcon Humberto Carmona Christopher Eatmon

Jorge Alvarez Rene Carmona Julia Enriquez
Ricardo Amaro Arnulfo Casas Leticia Enriquez–Gil
Derrick Anderson Keshawn Cass Ronald Erwing
Andrew Arellano Angel M. Castillo Maria Espino Portillo
Enrique Arellano Roger Castillo Luis Espinoza
Porter Ashley Jacob K. Castro Jorge A. Esquivel
Jairo Atienzo Orlando Cazarez Eduardo Estrada
Christopher Ballesteros David A. Chavira Daniel C. Felix, Sr.
David K. Beckton Efren Climaco- Jonathan Finney
Mendoza
Yared Bekele Jesus P. Fitch
Joseph E. Cortes
William A. Beltran Jose Isaac Flores, Jr.
Jorge A. Davalos
Juan F. Bernal, Jr. Marvin Franco
Hayward T. Davis
Robert T. Berrios Paul Gamez
Erskine Davis
Deon L. Bowen Rogelio Gandara, Jr.
Jose Delgado
Frank M. Bowman Francisco G. Garcia
Mike Delgado
Leopoldo Bramasco Howard E. Garcia
Damone Dent
Delbert Byrd McDuffie Garrett
Celso Diaz
Pablo Jesus Cabrera Gonzalo Gil
Gilbert Diaz
Ralph Cacho Cassidy Glaspie
Juan J. Diaz
Pedro Canales Henry Gomez
Marcus Dixon
Santo Carcamo Adrian Gonzalez
Obed Duarte
Daniel C. Cardiel Tyree Graham
EXHIBIT 1
45
Gary Green David M. Leon Dareth Muk

Johnny N. Gutierrez Alex F. Lopez Virgus Munns
Juan G. Gutierrez Edward G. Lopez Francisco A. Munoz
Levin A. Gutierrez Eric Lopez Sergio Munoz
Steven Harris Hector Jaime Luna Miguel Navarro
Adrian Hernandez Fidel Magallon Hector Ortega
Adrian Hernandez Theodore Malone Isaias Ortega
Armando E. Dani Marcos Hector L. Ortiz
Hernandez
Hugo Mariscal Alexis Oseguera
Francisco Hernandez
Joe L. Martinez Agustin Osornio
Henry D. Hernandez
Raul R. Martinez Robin M. Owens
Kyin Hliang
Maurice McCoy Louie Palacios, Jr.
Daniel Huerta
Sergio Mejia Darryl Palmer
Javier G. Jimenez
Margie Melendez Rodrigo Pastrano
Bernardo Anthony
Francisco J. Mendez Nathan Phornsovann
Juarez
Roman Mendoza Miguel Pizana
Gregorio Juarez
Makonnen Miles Ryan Plascencia
Nicholas Kennedy
Williams Frank Miramontes Gregory Postell
Amanias Kidane Rogelio Montiel Prayong Pouey
Johnny T. Knight Donald R. Moore Rolando Poyaoan
Robert S. Knight Gilbert R. Mora, Sr. Christopher Prater
John Dave Lacanilao Simon Moreno Jose M. Preciado
Artur Laloyan Miguel A. Morgan Octavio Ramirez
Dirk D. Lawrence Olarewaju Moses Juan Rivas
Travis Lee Julio Moya Barry J. Robinson
EXHIBIT 1
46
Gregory L. Robinson David Salinas Gregory Dean Tyson

Jeremy H. Rodriguez Jose Sanchez Francisco J. Valadez
Johnny E. Rodriguez Wayne Sanchez Juan Valle
Jose A. Rodriguez Alfred Sepulveda Leonard Valles
Martha Dolores Jesus Sepulveda Juan C. Vasquez
Rodriguez
Aryel Silveyra Antonio Veloz
Jesus Rodriguez, Jr.
Luis M. Soto Miguel A. Villalobos
Ronnie Rolland
Kwok Che Sung Jesus Villarreal
Victor Romero
Arturo Talavera Louie Watkins
Ernie Roybal
Aaron Tanner Donnie R. Williams
Pedro H. Ruiz
Willie Tatum, Jr. Robert L. Woods
Rigoberto Ruiz, Jr.
Collins Thomas Jerry Wright, Jr.
Carlos Victor Saenz
Sharece Thomas Alexis Yee-Cruz
Robert Salazar
Ignacio Topete Bountar Yorn
Anthony R. Salazar, Jr.
Talavou Tusa Sergio Zintzun
EXHIBIT 1
47
GROUP 2 PLAINTIFFS
Robert Aguilar Ana Luisa Chacon Carl D. Ellison

Adrian J. Aguirre Chamroeun Chaing Oscar O. Esquivel
Emilio Aguirre Carl Chavez Frank Estrada
Nancy Alas Nelson Chhan Marco A. Fernandez
Michael Allen Daniel Cisneros Jonathan Flores
Jared Andrews, Jr. Tyrone Clardy, Jr. Luis X. Flores
Carlos J. Arellano Jose Coca Marcos A. Flores
Ernestina Avina Alex Contreras Verulo Flores
Jesus Barrales Romero David Contreras Richard Flowers
Baren L. Baylor Guadalupe Contreras Earl Floyd
Rodney E. Bell Jose Contreras Jose Fonseca
Heber Borunda Jumane Cooper Roderick D. Frank
Michael Broadnax Jose Luis Cortez Arturo Frias
Donald C. Brown Reginald D. Crandell Delvonte Gibbs
Delroy Burnett Kawon Crayton Dennis Gillespie
Daryl Butler Deon Daniels Milton E. Gomez
Derrick Byrd Rosendo De La Cruz Dyana C. Gonzalez
Guillermo Calleros Karl De La Torre Noe Gonzalez
Herchell Calloway Rick Deaube Rasim Grcic
Edgar Carlos Barraza Charles Desmond, Jr. John M. Guzman
Hector Casas Darius Drafton Jamaal Haney
Florentino Cazarez Ronald Duhon Dennis L. Harville, Jr.
Ignacio Cedano Reginald Eberhardt Fateh Hasbellaoui
EXHIBIT 1
48
Ruben Hernandez Moonney May Armando Padilla, Jr.

Jorge Herrera Melvin McCoy Gino Palacios
Lindsey Hogan Deshon B. McCray Steven Perez
Tyrone W. Holmes, Jr. Timothy McKinley, Jr. Jose Pineda
Leondra L. Holt Marlon McNeil Damian Polk
Eric Hudson Angel Mejia Gilbert Posada
Reginald Jackson Jesus Menchaca Ivan Rabb
Jeffery L. Jefferson Edward Meniefield Santiago Rafael
Bert A. Jennings Raymond Montanez Leon Railback
David Lee Jolley, Jr. Vincent A. Moore Pablo M. Ramirez
Garland V. Jones, Jr. Cedric Moore, Jr. Michael Ramos
Dwayne Kelley Gilbert Mora, Jr. Adrian Recendez
Alonso Landeros Felipe Morales Gregory Reyes
Juan Landeros Leonel Moreno Antonio Reynolds
Leslie Lawrence Angel Erick Moreno- Matthew Rivers
Victoria
James M. Lee Emmett Robinson
Juan Daniel Munoz
Andrew P. Leon Gloria Robles
Anthony E. Murphy
Rupertino Leon Reymundo Rosas
Carlos Navarro
Evlalio Lopez Silvestre S. Rubio
Hernandez Robert Neal
Samuel Saavedra
Israel Lopez Sotelo Byron C. Nelson, Sr.
Alfred Salas
Pedro J. Lopez, Jr. Glenn O'Claray
Jesse Sanders
Luis Manzo Robert J. Orozco
Francisco Sepulbeda
Benjamin Martinez Alejandro A. Ortega
Demetrius Shanks
Picon
Miguel Maturino
Cesar Silva
Rodrigo Ortiz
EXHIBIT 1
49
Marques Simon
Ronzel Simpson
Jesse L. Smith
Darrin L. Snoddy
Raymond Snowden, III
Stephen Tan
Reginald Tinsley, Jr.
Khelil Toudji
Deon Tyler
Edder Umana
Juan A. Vasquez
Juan Veloz
Michael Vicks
Brian Villarreal
Jieli Wang
Leonard Washington
Michael J. Wilcher
Jose L. Witrago, Jr.
Prayath Yorn
EXHIBIT 1
50
EXHIBIT 2
July 19, 2017
VIA USPS TRACKING

No. 9114 9014 9645 0575 6549 20
Attn: Plan Administrator

National Production Workers Union Severance Trust Plan
1420 Kensington Road, Suite 335
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Re: Request for Plan Documents Pursuant to the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
Dear Plan Administrator:
My name is Rodrigo Pastrano and I am an employee of Parsec, Inc. I am a

participant in the National Production Workers Union Severance Trust Plan (the
"Plan"). The Employer Identification Number for the Plan is 36-2872107.
Pursuant to my rights as a Participant of the Plan, and under the rights

conferred on me by ERISA Sections 502 (a) and (c), I respectfully request copies of
the following materials:
(1) A copy of any and all Summary Plan Descriptions ("SPD") for the
Plan;
(2) The Plan Document;
(3) Any and all administrative services contracts, third-party

administrative contracts or similar contracts between the Plan and
any and all plan insurers and/or claims administrators, hired or
contracted with the Trust Fund for years 2011-2017.
EXHIBIT 2
51
EXHIBIT 2
52

2018-4-11 NPWU Severance Plan Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018-4-11 NPWU Severance Plan Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-03057 Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:1

1 RALPH M. PHILLIPS, ESQ. (SBN 64481)

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 DELROY BURNETT; DARYL

1 CARL D. ELLISON; JULIA

1 TYRONE W. HOLMES, JR.;

1 RAYMOND MONTANEZ; ROGELIO

1 GREGORY REYES; ANTONIO

1 Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record herein, allege as follows:

18 If this Plan merges or consolidates with, or transfers in whole or in

1 such Participants’ inclusion in the new or successor employer’s plan;

4 65. Article IX of the Severance Plan’s SPD broadly prohibits

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray as follows:

1 Dated: April 11, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

5 By: /S/ Ralph M. Phillips

Juan Alarcon Humberto Carmona Christopher Eatmon

Gary Green David M. Leon Dareth Muk

Gregory L. Robinson David Salinas Gregory Dean Tyson

Robert Aguilar Ana Luisa Chacon Carl D. Ellison

Ruben Hernandez Moonney May Armando Padilla, Jr.

July 19, 2017

VIA USPS TRACKING

Attn: Plan Administrator

Re: Request for Plan Documents Pursuant to the Employee Retirement

Dear Plan Administrator:

My name is Rodrigo Pastrano and I am an employee of Parsec, Inc. I am a

Pursuant to my rights as a Participant of the Plan, and under the rights

(2) The Plan Document;

(3) Any and all administrative services contracts, third-party

You might also like