Larry Douglas Kerns v. Mathew J. Wenner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY DOUGLAS KERNS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MATHEW J. WENNER,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-56048
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Larry Douglas Kerns appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) action
relating to his application for benefits under a Retirement Benefit Plan of the
GCIU-Employment Retirement Fund. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56048
§ 1291. We review de novo. Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kerns seeks
only punitive damages, and ERISA does not allow recovery of punitive damages.
See Bast v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 150 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 1998)
(“Extracontractual, compensatory and punitive damages are not available under
ERISA.”); see also Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 52 (1987) (the civil
enforcement provisions of ERISA are “the exclusive vehicle for actions by ERISA-
plan participants and beneficiaries asserting improper processing of a claim for
benefits . . . .”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --