Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Board of Trustees v. Chambers

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 7, 2019

The Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust; Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada Glaziers and Fabricators Pension Trust Fund; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Pension Plan; The Board of Trustees of the Painters, Glaziers and Floorcoverers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Trust; The Board of Trustees of the Painters, Glaziers and Floorcoverers Safety Training Trust Fund; The Board of Trustees of the Painters and Floorcoverers Joint Committee; The Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada Painters and Decorators and Glaziers Labor-management Cooperation Committee Trust; The Board of Trustees of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund; The Board of Trustees of the Employee Painters' Trust; The Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust; The Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust; The Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Vacation Trust; The Board of Trustees of Southern Nevada Laborers Local 872 Training Trust; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Pension Plan; Board of Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 525 Apprentice and Journeyman Training Trust for Southern Nevada, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Shannon Chambers, Nevada Labor Commissioner, in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted En Banc June 18, 2019 San Francisco, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson No. 2:15-cv-01754-KJD-VCF, District Judge, Presiding

          Heidi P. Stern (argued), Solicitor General; Melissa L. Flatley, Deputy Attorneys General; Gregory L. Zunino, Bureau Chief; Joseph F. Tartakovsky, Deputy Solicitor General; Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, Nevada; for Defendant-Appellant.

          Bryce C. Loveland (argued) and Adam P. Segal, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada; Daryl E. Martin and Wesley J. Smith, Christensen James & Martin, Las Vegas, Nevada; Sean W. McDonald and Michael A. Urban, The Urban Law Firm, Las Vegas, Nevada; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

          Sarah Bryan Fask, Littler Mendelson P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Richard N. Hill, Littler Mendelson P.C., San Francisco, California; for Amicus Curiae Nevada Contractors Association.

          Kevin C. Powers, Chief Litigation Counsel; Brenda J. Erdoes, Legislative Counsel; Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, Carson City, Nevada; for Amicus Curiae Nevada Legislature.

          Laurie A. Traktman, Gilbert & Sackman, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada, and Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada.

          Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Sandra S. Ikuta, Morgan Christen, John B. Owens, Ryan D. Nelson, and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY [*]

         Mootness of Action Challenging Legislation

         The en banc court dismissed as moot an appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action challenging Nevada Senate Bill 223, which amended state vicarious liability and lien collection laws to impose certain administrative requirements on labor union trusts when they pursue debt collection on behalf of union members.

         The district court held that the statute was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. While this appeal from the district court's judgment was pending, the Nevada legislature repealed Senate Bill 223 and replaced it with Senate Bill 338, with the specific intent to avoid the ERISA preemption issues of Senate Bill 223.

         Joining other circuits, the panel held that the repeal, amendment, or expiration of legislation creates a presumption that an action challenging the legislation is moot, unless there is a reasonable expectation that the legislature is likely to enact the same or substantially similar legislation in the future. Applying these principles to this case, the panel concluded that the action was moot. The panel dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint.

          OPINION

          THOMAS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.