SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION NATIONAL INDUSTRY PENSION FUND et al v. CASTLE HILL HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, LLC

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION: The Court will order that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the total amount of $63,135.99. A separate Order will issue. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/12/2019. (lcrdm2, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION NATIONAL
INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 17-1666 (RDM)

v.
CASTLE HILL HEALTHCARE
PROVIDERS, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund, a
multiemployer employee pension plan, and its Trustees (collectively the “Fund”) brought this
action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) seeking,
among other things, to collect unpaid contributions, interest, and liquidated damages from
Defendant Castle Hill Healthcare Providers, LLC (“Castle Hill”). Dkt. 1 at 2 (Compl. ¶ 1). The
dispute centers around whether Castle Hill complied with its obligations under ERISA, as
amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of
2014 (“MPRA”), and its 2010 collective bargaining agreement with the Service Employees
International Union Local 1199 to make supplemental contributions to the Fund, which fell into
“critical status” in 2009.
In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Fund’s motion for
summary judgment, holding that, although “the Fund ha[d] carried its burden as to Castle Hill’s
failure to comply with its obligations under both the MPRA and the [Fund’s rehabilitation]

plan,” two uncertainties prevented the Court from granting summary judgment in full. Serv.
Employees Int'l Union Nat'l Indus. Pension Fund v. Castle Hill Healthcare Providers, LLC, No.
CV 17-1666 (RDM), 2019 WL 1429536, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2019) (“SEIU I”). First, based
on the record before it, the Court could not resolve the parties’ disagreement as to the rate Castle
Hill was required to contribute to the Fund from October 2014 until the effective date of the
MPRA (January 1, 2015). See id. at *6–8. Second, even for the period after the MPRA went
into effect, the Court concluded that it could not enter judgment as to the specific amounts owed
because of unexplained discrepancies in dates and rates between the first and second set of
calculations submitted by the Fund. Id. at *9–10. The Court, accordingly, granted summary
judgment as to Castle Hill’s liability but denied summary judgment as to the specific amounts
owed. The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, concluding that “[u]ntil the
Court can ascertain the amount that Castle Hill owes, it is premature to issue an injunction
compelling the company to make those payments.” Id. at *10.
After the Court issued its decision, the parties submitted joint stipulations to resolve the
remaining issues without further briefing. See Dkt. 27. The parties now agree—for the purposes
of this litigation only—on an applicable supplemental contribution rate for the period from
October 2014 to the effective date of the MPRA, as well as the specific rates and payment
periods. Id. at 1–3. Based on these agreed-upon rates and time periods, Plaintiffs have
submitted calculations and an accompanying declaration demonstrating that they are entitled to
$36,193.87 in unpaid contributions from Castle Hill. See Dkt. 28 (Bardes Decl.); Dkt. 28-1
(dietary, housekeeping, and recreational aides spreadsheet); Dkt. 28-2 (certified nurse assistants).
Because the parties’ original “Collection Policy calls for the collection of interest on
delinquent contributions at the rate of 10% per year, and liquidated damages equal to the amount

2

of either the interest due or 20% of the delinquent contribution, whichever is greater,” SEIU I,
2019 WL 1429536, at *2, Castle Hill owes Plaintiffs a total of $63,135.99. Although Castle Hill
does not “concede that any amounts are owed,” it acknowledges that the Fund has submitted
materials demonstrating this total and that “the Court has determined that Plaintiffs have met
their burden with regard to damages.” Dkt. 30 at 1.
The Court will, accordingly, order that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Defendant in the total amount of $63,135.99.
A separate Order will issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge

Date: July 12, 2019

3