Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Trust et al v. Earth Stone, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion at docket 12 is GRANTED to the extent that defendant owes some amount of unpaid contributions to plaintiffs, together with associated sums to be calculated pursuant to applicable statutes, but otherwise DENIED. Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 5/10/16. (GMM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ALASKA 8 9 10 Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Trust, et al., 11 12 Plaintiffs, vs. 13 14 15 Earth Stone, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:15-cv-193 JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at docket 12] 16 I. MOTION PRESENTED 17 18 At docket 12 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendant opposes at 19 docket 19, and plaintiffs reply at docket 23. Oral argument has not been requested and 20 would not assist the court. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 23 24 In their motion and supporting papers, plaintiffs ask the court to rule that as a matter of law defendant is liable for unpaid contributions due to plaintiffs as well as for 25 liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. More specifically, they ask the 26 court to rule that they are entitled to judgment against defendant for $66,887.51 plus 27 attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs rely on a payroll audit performed by 28 1 2 3 CliftonLarsonAllen LLP. In its opposition, def endant does not deny that it owes some amount of money for unpaid contributions, but provides its owner’s affidavit which is sufficient to create disputed issues of material fact with respect to the amount owed. 4 5 6 Plaintiffs concede this point in their reply. Having reviewed the parties’ papers, the court concludes that plaintif fs are not 7 entitled as a matter of law to all the relief they request. The motion at docket 12 is 8 GRANTED to the extent that defendant owes some amount of unpaid contributions to 9 plaintiffs, together with associated sums to be calculated pursuant to applicable 10 statutes, but otherwise DENIED. Because resolution of the quantum owed appears to 11 12 be largely an accounting problem, the court strongly recommends that the parties settle 13 their dispute. In the court’s view, resolution of the amount owed by defendant could be 14 more efficiently resolved by mediation, negotiation, or the engagement of a mutually 15 agreeable independent accountant than by trial. 16 DATED this 10th day of May 2016. 17 18 19 20 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?