Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. US Foods, Inc.
761 F.3d 687
7th Cir.2014Background
- Employers withdrawing from underfunded multiemployer pension plans must pay their share of the shortfall and may dispute assessments within 90 days, with a separate arbitration window of 60 days under 29 U.S.C. §1401(a).
- Arbitration under the MPPAA is statutory, not contractual; it delegates dispute resolution to a process described in the statute, not a private agreement.
- Central States Pension Fund assessed US Foods for 2008 and 2009; US Foods timely sought arbitration for 2009 but did not request arbitration for 2008 within the statutory limit.
- US Foods sought district court relief to have the arbitrator calculate both 2008 and 2009 jointly, arguing the 2008 deadline should be extended by interlinked considerations.
- The district court ruled US Foods missed the 2008 deadline; US Foods appealed under 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(B) claiming interlocutory appeal of an arbitration-related order, raising the interplay between the FAA and MPPAA procedures.
- The opinion concludes the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the issues concern ongoing arbitration, and the order did not compel or deny arbitration under §4 of the FAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16(a)(1)(B) allows an interlocutory appeal in this MPPAA arbitration context | US Foods argues §16(a)(1)(B) applies to orders in arbitration proceedings under FAA. | Fund contends §16(a)(1)(B) does not authorize appeal here because no FAA‑style order directing arbitration exists. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether MPPAA arbitration is the same as FAA arbitration for §16 purposes | MPPAA procedures should be treated like contractual arbitration under FAA. | MPPAA arbitration is statutory, not a written agreement; FAA §4 not triggered. | Not an order under FAA §4; interlocutory appeal unavailable. |
| Whether the district court’s pre-arbitration ruling is appealable | US Foods seeks review of the district court's deadline ruling applying to 2008 and 2009. | Ruling concerns management of ongoing arbitration, not a final denial or order to arbitrate. | No appeal under FAA §16; jurisdiction lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS Insurance Co., 671 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2011) (proposed judicial direction to arbitrator is not an order to arbitrate; avoid mid-arbitration intervention)
- Trustmark Insurance Co. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., 631 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2011) (judges must not intervene in pending arbitration; review occurs at beginning or end, not middle)