Solis v. Pinder

Fourth Circuit

Solis v. Pinder

340 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 2009

Docket08-1552

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 F. App'x 160 (Solis v. Pinder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solis v. Pinder, 340 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Pinder, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order, following a bench trial, that he pay damages in the amount of $21,692.21 to the Secretary of Labor *990 (“Secretary”) for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The court also ordered Pin-der to pay costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). The district court found Pinder liable for damages that he inflicted when he failed to properly remit Sea Island Comprehensive Health Care Corporation (“Sea Island”) employee withholdings to an ERISA-protected pension plan (“Plan”). Rather, the undisputed evidence reveals that Pinder, as President and Chief Financial Officer, diverted those employee pension withholdings to the general operating accounts of Sea Island.

On appeal, Pinder raises five issues: (1) whether the district court erred by disallowing him to cross-examine the Secretary’s witness regarding whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether the court erred in its finding that he was a fiduciary under ERISA; (3) whether the court erred by concluding that this court’s opinion in Chao v. Malkani, 452 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2006), was controlling; (4) whether the district court erred in finding that the alleged losses to the Plan had not been returned to Plan participants; and (5) whether Pinder was protected by immunity from the instant judgment by the bankruptcy court’s reorganization order granting immunity to directors, officers, and employees of Sea Island. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The first issue fails as the record reveals that Pinder was allowed, and did, cross-examine Department of Labor Investigator Isabel Colon regarding when the Department first became aware of Pinder’s possible ERISA violations. Pinder’s remaining four issues fail for the reasons stated in the district court’s post-trial order granting judgment for the Secretary. Thus, we find that these issues fail on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chao v. Pinder, No. 2:03-cv-00653-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2008). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Pinder, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order, following a bench trial, that he pay damages in the amount of $21,692.21 to the Secretary of Labor *990 (“Secretary”) for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The court also ordered Pin-der to pay costs pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). The district court found Pinder liable for damages that he inflicted when he failed to properly remit Sea Island Comprehensive Health Care Corporation (“Sea Island”) employee withholdings to an ERISA-protected pension plan (“Plan”). Rather, the undisputed evidence reveals that Pinder, as President and Chief Financial Officer, diverted those employee pension withholdings to the general operating accounts of Sea Island.

On appeal, Pinder raises five issues: (1) whether the district court erred by disallowing him to cross-examine the Secretary’s witness regarding whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether the court erred in its finding that he was a fiduciary under ERISA; (3) whether the court erred by concluding that this court’s opinion in Chao v. Malkani, 452 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2006), was controlling; (4) whether the district court erred in finding that the alleged losses to the Plan had not been returned to Plan participants; and (5) whether Pinder was protected by immunity from the instant judgment by the bankruptcy court’s reorganization order granting immunity to directors, officers, and employees of Sea Island. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The first issue fails as the record reveals that Pinder was allowed, and did, cross-examine Department of Labor Investigator Isabel Colon regarding when the Department first became aware of Pinder’s possible ERISA violations. Pinder’s remaining four issues fail for the reasons stated in the district court’s post-trial order granting judgment for the Secretary. Thus, we find that these issues fail on appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chao v. Pinder, No. 2:03-cv-00653-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2008). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solis-v-pinder-ca4-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack