*1 Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mark Alan Lindquist appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
*2
judgment in an action by his company’s pension plan to impose joint and several
withdrawal liability against him under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (“ERISA”), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act
of 1980. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2).
We review de novo,
Bd. of Trs. of the W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund v.
Lafrenz
,
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lindquist
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he operated a “trade
or business” under “common control” by leasing property to the company in which
he was the sole shareholder when it withdrew from the pension plan.
See
29
U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1);
see also Lafrenz
,
Lindquist’s argument that the district court should have applied a different definition of “trade or business” is unpersuasive. See Comm’r v. Groetzinger , 480 U.S. 23, 27 n.8 (1987) (confining its statutory construction of the phrase “trade or business” to the tax code provision at issue).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16943
Notes
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).