No Right to Jury Trial in ERISA Withdrawal Liability Case Involving Veil-Piercing and Evade-or-Avoid Theories, District Court Holds

Brian A. Pepicelli, Esq., bpepicelli@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-3953
Neil J. Gregorio, Esq., ngregorio@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-3911

In Board of Trustees of the PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund v. SMAC Hawaii, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192966 (D. Haw. Sept. 30, 2025), the pension fund sought to collect over $610,000 in ERISA withdrawal liability from affiliated individuals and entities of the withdrawn employer. In a prior summary judgment ruling, the court held that two issues needed to be resolved at a trial: (1) whether the individual owners could be held personally liable under a veil-piercing theory, and (2) whether a transaction that resulted in one of the affiliated companies exiting the controlled could be disregarded as an evade-or-avoid transaction. In this follow-up ruling, the dispute was whether the trial on these issues was to be a jury trial (as demanded by the individual owners and affiliated entities) or a bench trial (as argued by the pension fund).

The court sided with the pension fund and granted its motion to strike the jury demand. The court reasoned that because the pension fund’s veil-piercing and evade-or-avoid theories are methods for enforcing withdrawal liability, and because there is no right to a jury trial in a withdrawal liability action, the trial should proceed as a bench trial.  

Key Takeaway: Regardless of whether a withdrawal liability issue is being litigated in arbitration or federal court, it will not be decided by a jury. Either an arbitrator or a federal judge will be the finder of fact.