
    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.
    No. 16-16749
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted December 5, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed December 18, 2017
    Donna L. Kirchner, Esquire, Counsel, Michael J. Korda, Katherine A. McDon-ough, Attorneys, George M. Kraw, Senior Attorney, Kraw Law Group, a Professional Corporation, Mountain View, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Candice Broock, Attorney, Robert B. Miller, Esquire, Attorney, Kilmer Voo-rhees & Laurick, P.C., Portland, OR, Andrew Bennett Downs, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: KOZINSKI and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
    
   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.
     