Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Mark Alan Lindquist

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA;
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CARPENTERS
PENSION TRUST FUND FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MARK ALAN LINDQUIST,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-16943
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03386-SC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mark Alan Lindquist appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16943 2
judgment in an action by his company’s pension plan to impose joint and several
withdrawal liability against him under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (“ERISA”), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act
of 1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2).
We review de novo, Bd. of Trs. of the W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund v.
Lafrenz, 837 F.2d 892, 893 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindquist
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he operated a “trade
or business” under “common control” by leasing property to the company in which
he was the sole shareholder when it withdrew from the pension plan. See 29
U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1); see also Lafrenz, 837 F.2d at 894-95 (a for-profit truck
leasing operation owned by the majority shareholders of an employer withdrawing
from a pension plan constituted a “trade or business” under “common control” for
purposes of imposing joint and several withdrawal liability under ERISA).
Lindquist’s argument that the district court should have applied a different
definition of “trade or business” is unpersuasive. See Comm’r v. Groetzinger, 480
U.S. 23, 27 n.8 (1987) (confining its statutory construction of the phrase “trade or
business” to the tax code provision at issue).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --