Fisher v. Landers CA3

Filed 6/12/24 Fisher v. Landers CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

AMY FISHER et al., C096204

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. PR-2020-145)

v.

AVA LANDERS, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs Amy Fisher, Kim Ridgway, David Ide, and Samantha Ide appeal the trial court’s order finding defendant Ava Landers entitled to all proceeds from a benefits plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) (Act). We affirm because we conclude plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient record for meaningful review.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record here includes the trial court’s statement of decision, the resulting notices of entry of the decision and entry of the judgment, notice of appeal, appellant’s notice designating the record on appeal, and the register of action.1 The statement of decision states the trial court “on its own motion and using its inherent power bifurcated the trial and separated and tried first the question of [the Act] preemption and specifically whether [the Act] preempts any [s]tate law claims that have been brought by [plaintiffs] in this case.” The trial court found the following facts “uncontroverted” from the testimony and evidence presented: “The decedent, David Ide,[2] during his employment and at the time of his retirement, was a participant in the [r]etirement [s]avings [p]lan for [u]nion [r]epresented [e]mployees at [Pacific Gas & Electric], a 401(k) [p]lan governed by [the Act]. Before his retirement, during his retirement and at the time of his death, his non-participating and surviving spouse, [defendant], never executed a spousal consent form consenting to a beneficiary other than herself for the 401(k) [p]lan proceeds.” The trial court then concluded: “Based on the statutory framework of [the Act] and the case law interpreting it, including [Carmona v. Carmona (9th Cir. 2010) 603 F.3d 1041], the [c]ourt concludes that [the Act] preempts any [s]tate law claims governing the proceeds from the decedent’s 401(k) [p]lan. To hold otherwise would be to allow [s]tate law claims to contravene the dictates of [the Act]. As such, [defendant] is entitled to the full proceeds of the decedent’s 401(k) [p]lan, and the remaining bifurcated issues are therefore denied.” Plaintiffs appeal.