Ninth Circuit Rules That Factual Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment in Withdrawal Liability Case

In Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers; et al. v. Plant, No. 24-1499, 2025 WL 2612765 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025) (Before: Berzon, Friedland, and Mendoza, Circuit Judges), the Ninth Circuit issued an amended decision in this matter. The ruling, which was originally issued on July 11, 2025, reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Eleanor Plant, executor of the estate of Eleanor Dorothy Plant. At stake was whether Plant could be held jointly and severally liable under ERISA’s “controlled group” provisions after Kino Aggregates Inc. withdrew from the pension plan.

Under ERISA, when an employer withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan, withdrawal liability may be assessed not just against the employer but against its “controlled group.” If five or fewer persons own at least 80% of the withdrawing employer, those persons are jointly and severally liable. The plaintiffs asserted that Eleanor Plant and her husband owned 100% of Kino Aggregates and never issued certain stock allegedly promised to other individuals (Deborah Plant and Candelario Vargas). Deborah submitted a statement to that effect. The district court granted summary judgment for Eleanor because it found there was no admissible evidence confirming that Eleanor and her husband owned at least 80% at the relevant time. It also rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on Kino’s tax returns, prepared by the company’s accountant, as inadmissible hearsay.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that genuine issues of material fact exist that preclude summary judgment. Deborah’s statement that Eleanor and her husband owned 100% of Kino, and that the stock promises were never fulfilled, created a triable dispute as to ownership and controlled-group liability.

The Court also addressed evidentiary issues. It upheld the district court’s exclusion of Kino’s tax returns on the current record, finding plaintiffs did not establish that the accountant was Eleanor’s agent. However, it noted that admissibility could be revisited if additional evidence is presented. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision.