Quad Graphics, Inc. v. GCIU- Employer Retirement Fund

Filing 23

JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (1) The Court vacates the Arbitrators decision that Quads Versailles facility withdrew from the Fund in 2011; (2) The Court dismisses as moot the Funds challenge to the Arbitrators decision that the Fund may asse ss only a 2011 complete withdrawal; (3) The Court affirms the Arbitrators decision that the Fund correctly applied the partial withdrawal credit before the 20-year payment cap; (4) The Court dismisses without prejudice Quads challenge to the Arbitrat ors decision that it was not entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs under 29 C.F.R. 4221.10; (4) The Court affirms the Arbitrators decision not to delay issuance of the final arbitration award based on Quads unclean hands; and (5) The Court enforces the Funds February 1, 2013 Assessment as to the Versailles partial withdrawal and the complete withdrawal and orders Quad to: (a) make withdrawal liability payments to the ERF Fund on the 2010 Versailles partial withdrawal assessment in the monthly amount of $321,151.22, as specified in the February 1, 2013 Assessment; and (b) make withdrawal liability payments to the Fund on the 2011 complete withdrawal assessment in the monthly amount of $351,501.80, as specified in the February 1, 2013 Assessment. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

Download PDF
JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Central District of California 9 10 11 12 GCIU-EMPLOYER RETIREMENT FUND, 13 v. 14 15 Plaintiff, Case № 2:16-cv-03391-ODW (AFMx) [Consol. w/ Case No. 2:16-cv-3418ODW (AFMx)] JUDGMENT QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On May 17, 2016, GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund (“the Fund”) filed this 20 action against Quad/Graphics, Inc. (“Quad”). (ECF No. 1.) On May 18, 2016, Quad 21 filed a separate action against the Fund. (Compl., Quad Graphics, Inc. v. GCIU- 22 Employer Retirement Fund, Case No. 2:16-cv-3418-ODW (AFM) (C.D. Cal. May 18, 23 2016), ECF No. 1.) The Court consolidated both actions, and designated this action as 24 the lead case. (ECF No. 19.) On April 19, 2017, the Court entered an order affirming 25 in part and vacating in part underlying the arbitration award. (ECF No. 40.) On May 26 1, 2017, Quad dismissed portions of its challenge to the arbitration award. (ECF No. 27 41.) 28 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DECREED as follows: (1) The Court vacates the Arbitrator’s decision that Quad’s Versailles facility withdrew from the Fund in 2011; (2) The Court dismisses as moot the Fund’s challenge to the Arbitrator’s decision that the Fund may assess only a 2011 complete withdrawal; (3) The Court affirms the Arbitrator’s decision that the Fund correctly applied the partial withdrawal credit before the 20-year payment cap; 8 (4) The Court dismisses without prejudice Quad’s challenge to the Arbitrator’s 9 decision that it was not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 29 10 11 12 13 14 C.F.R. § 4221.10; (4) The Court affirms the Arbitrator’s decision not to delay issuance of the final arbitration award based on Quad’s “unclean hands”; and (5) The Court enforces the Fund’s February 1, 2013 Assessment as to the Versailles partial withdrawal and the complete withdrawal and orders Quad to: 15 (a) make withdrawal liability payments to the ERF Fund on the 2010 16 Versailles partial withdrawal assessment in the monthly amount of $321,151.22, 17 as specified in the February 1, 2013 Assessment; and 18 (b) make withdrawal liability payments to the Fund on the 2011 complete 19 withdrawal assessment in the monthly amount of $351,501.80, as specified in 20 the February 1, 2013 Assessment. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 May 2, 2017 25 26 27 28 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?