RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING PENSION TRUST FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES; Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHAEL'S FLOOR COVERING, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 707 F. App'x 859

MEMORANDUM 1. The district court didn’t err in holding appellants must show that Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc. (“MFC”) had notice of Stu-der’s Floor Covering Inc.’s (“SFC”) withdrawal liability prior to becoming SFC’s successor to impose withdrawal liability on MFC. See Resilient Floor Covering Pension Tr. Fund Bd. of Trs. v. Michael’s Floor Covering, Inc., 801 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2015). 2.

In employment cases, “[t]he principle [sic] reason for the notice requirement is to ensure fairness by guaranteeing that a successor had an opportunity to protect against liability by negotiating a lower price or indemnity clause.” Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1995). Appellants argue that MFC had sufficient notice because it knew that some of SFC’s employees were unionized and SFC contributed to a pension fund.

Appellants also claim that MFC had notice because a Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund trustee told MFC’s owner that “if the pension was fully funded as of today, I would go non-union the next day.” But this trustee was the owner of an entirely separate business in a different city and there’s no evidence that he had any ownership stake in MFC or SFC. These facts fail to show that MFC had notice of SFC’s withdrawal liability or “had an opportunity to protect against [it.]” Id. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.