Sendejas, et al v. Maritime Assn ILA

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 04-20745
_______________________
MICHAEL SENDEJAS, SR; RUTHIE HERNANDEZ;
Plaintiffs-Appellants
JESUS SENDEJAS
Appellant
versus
MARITIME ASSOCIATION ILA
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:04-CV-613
________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Sendejas appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of his brother’s employee pension plan,
Maritime Association ILA (the “Plan”). Finding no error, we
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Luis Sendejas was covered under an employee pension plan
until his death in 1991. In 1996, the Maritime Association-I.L.A.
Pension Plan (the “Plan”) retroactively amended its language to

-- 1 of 3 --

2
vest all participants in the Plan and guarantee a new survivor
benefit. Because of the retroactive benefit, Luis Sendejas’s
beneficiaries were eligible to receive about $105,513. The Plan
did not notify Luis Sendejas’s beneficiaries about their elibility,
however, and no payment was made until Jesus Sendejas, Luis’s
brother, applied for the benefit in 2003. A week after his
application, the Plan paid Jesus the benefit. Jesus Sendejas filed
suit for equitable restitution under ERISA for the interest on his
brother’s benefit, and he now appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Plan.
DISCUSSION
Labeling his claim “unjust enrichment,” Jesus Sendejas
argues that he is entitled to interest on his brother’s benefit,
without regard to fault. ERISA provides for “other equitable
relief” only when there has been a violation of ERISA or the Plan.
29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) provides that a beneficiary may bring a
civil action
(A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any
provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan, or
(B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to
redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions
of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.
Id. In construing this section, courts should be “especially
‘reluctant to tamper with [the] enforcement scheme’ embodied in the
statute by extending remedies not specifically authorized by its
text.” Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S.
204, 209, 122 S. Ct. 708, 712 (2002) (quoting Mass. Mut. Life Ins.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 147, 105 S. Ct. 3085, 3093 (1985)).
ERISA thus provides that a beneficiary may sue for
appropriate equitable relief if, and only if, there is a violation
of either the Plan or the ERISA statute. See, e.g., Fotta v. Trs.
of United Mine Workers of Am., 319 F.3d 612, 616 (3d Cir. 2003).
Within a week of applying for benefits, Jesus Sendejas received
them. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, beneficiaries are not
entitled to anything until they apply for a benefit. Accordingly,
the district court correctly concluded that there was no breach of
the Plan. Further, there is simply no violation of ERISA when a
Plan pays a benefit only upon entitlement.
CONCLUSION
We need not reach the difficult issues latent in this
case, because it is clear that Jesus Sendejas can point to no facts
that demonstrate a breach of the Plan language or the ERISA
statute. Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --