James Leblanc, an individual v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan, a Trust

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES LEBLANC, an individual; PEAR
POINT PROJECT, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs/counter-defendants
- Appellants,
v.
MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
HEALTH PLAN, a Trust; MOTION
PICTURE INDUSTRY PENSION PLAN,
a Trust,
Defendants/counter-claimants
- Appellees.
No. 13-55291
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04181-GAF-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2015
Pasadena, California
FILED
FEB 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: GRABER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,** District
Judge.
Plaintiffs James LeBlanc, a cinematographer, and Pear Point Project, LLC,
appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants Motion
Picture Industry Health Plan and Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, which are
ERISA plans, and the court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees. We
affirm.
1. Defendants did consider the non-contemporaneous documents that
Plaintiffs offered in support of the claim that Pear Point actually employed at least
one other person for the required periods of time. But Defendants gave specific
and legitimate reasons for rejecting the adequacy of those documents to
demonstrate the requisite employment and hours. Therefore, Defendants did not
abuse their discretion. See Anderson v. Suburban Teamsters of N. Ill. Pension
Fund Bd. of Trs., 588 F.3d 641, 646 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating our standard of
review); Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 676 (9th Cir.
2011) (defining abuse of discretion).
2. Plaintiffs received a "full and fair" review as required by 29 U.S.C.
§ 1133(2). The record does not support Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendants had a
** The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

blanket policy of rejecting all non-contemporaneous records, or all records other
than payroll records, as insufficient. And, as noted, Defendants in fact considered
Plaintiffs’ documentation; a full and fair review does not require a plan
administrator to accept as sufficient any particular document.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiffs’
motion for attorney fees. See St. John’s Organic Farm v. Gem Cnty. Mosquito
Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating our standard of
review).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --