Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 150 Pension Fund et al v. Muns Welding and Mechanical Inc.
Filing
44
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 27 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying as moot 40 Motion to Quash. The Court orders the Defendant to pay Plain tiff Pension Fund $59,491.40 before November 22, 2015, and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court Orders Plaintiffs to file a memorandum detailing their attorneys' fees and costs before November 16, 2015, and directs both parties to file, before November 16, 2015, any contentions to the aforementioned amounts for interest and liquidated damages. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/30/2015. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
PLUMBERS AND
LOCAL 150
STEAMFITTERS
*
PENSION FUND and
*
JEFFREY RICE and
*
RORY LAFONTAINE,
as
*
Representative Trustees of the
Pension Fund,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
CV 115-038
v.
MUNS WELDING AND MECHANICAL,
*
INC. ,
*
Defendant
ORDER
Presently
judgment
on
before
the
the
Court
are
Plaintiffs'
motion
for
pleadings
(Doc.
15),
Defendant's
motion
for
summary judgment (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 35), and Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiffs'
notice of intent to file reply brief (Doc. 40) .
For the reasons
below, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings
and DENIES
AS MOOT
the motion
for
summary judgment,
the
cross
motion for summary judgment, and the motion to quash.
I,
This
Plumbers
Fund")
case
and
arises
out
Steamfitters
BACKGROUND
of
a
Local
dispute
150
Pension
and Jeffrey Rice and Rory LaFontaine,
trustees
of
the
Pension Fund,
between
Plaintiffs
Fund
("Pension
as representative
and Defendant Muns
Welding and
Mechanical,
Inc.
collective
("Muns
Welding").
bargaining
Steamfitters
Contractors
Local
agreement
Union
Association,
150
Inc.,
its
employees.
(Id.)
provided
Yet,
Defendant
Defendant
owed
on
with
Doc.
the
(Id.)
To
stated that,
by continuing to
1,
demand
Pension
liability.
1.)
2013,
December
a
an
and
Mechanical
obligation
However,
to
2 014,
the
demand,
direct
Pension
indicating
$2,416,913
this
when
the
Defendant was no longer
letter
Fund
justify
the
Plumbers
Augusta
had
with
to the Pension Fund on behalf
agreement expired on September 30,
bound.
the
Defendant
(Compl.,
accordance
between
and
make fringe benefit contributions
of
In
in
the
that
withdrawal
Pension
union members
Fund
to
Fund
perform
work in the purview of the expired agreement without making the
same contributions,
Pension Fund.
After
Defendant had effectively withdrawn from the
(Id.)
denying
the
contentions
within
the
Pension
Fund's
letter, Defendant filed suit in this Court on February 2, 2015,
seeking
declaratory
Fund's allegations.
Trs.
and
injunctive
relief
(See Muns Welding & Mech.,
of Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No.
l:15-cv-017
(S.D.
from
Ga. Apr.
2,
2015).)
the
Pension
Inc. v. Bd. of
50 Pension Fund,
No.
As to Defendant's case,
this Court granted the Pension Fund's motion to dismiss because
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
mandates
that
withdrawal
liability
2
disputes
be
handled
in
arbitration.
Before
the
Court's
order
was
issued,
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on March 6,
however,
2015,
interim payments on the alleged withdrawal liability.
Doc.
1.)
Since
pleadings,
have
that
time,
a
motion
two summary judgment motions,
been
filed.
The
Court
will
now
for
seeking
(Compl.,
judgment
on
the
and a motion to quash
address
each
of
these
in
turn.
II, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
12(c),
xx[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay
trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed.
Civ.
P.
12(c).
appropriate
However,
"where
Cir.
City
2001) .
outcome
of
of
A
the
entitled to
West
fact
suit
is
must
be
a
based
Inc.,
judgment on
on
the
the
the
pleadings
facts
judgment as
250
"material"
under
on
material
Palm Beach,
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
other words,
judgment
there are no
the moving party is
Cannon v.
a
if
xxit
governing
477 U.S.
the pleadings
undisputed
facts
might
law."
1300
1299,
247
alone,
(11th
affect
if
the
law."
(1986).
appearing
and
of
[substantive]
242,
only
in dispute
a matter
F.3d
is
R.
"In
sustained,
in
all
the
pleadings." Stanton v. Larsh, 239 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir. 1957).
The
legal
standards
governing
Rule
12(c)
motions
are
same as those governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
the
Roma
Outdoor Creations, Inc. v. City of Cumming, Ga., 558 F. Supp. 2d
1283,
1284
(N.D.
Ga.
2008)
("A
motion
for
pleadings is subject to the same standard as
motion
to
dismiss.")
Therefore,
Plaintiffs'
that is
'plausible on its face.'" JP Morgan Chase Bank,
Mar.
2012)
20,
1187,
1196
1:10-cv-1666,
2012
WL
(quoting Wooten v.
(11th Cir.
2010)).
to
state
complaint
sufficient
No.
matter
on
a
949698,
claim
at
Court
to
draw
the
reasonable
inference
liable for the misconduct alleged."
662,
678
(2009).
that
In applying this standard,
on
(1)
all
unpaid withdrawal
Defendant,
damages,
(2)
(4)
attorneys'
Doc. 1.)
interest
liquidated
fees,
Plaintiffs
those payments,
damages,
incurred
and
in bringing
(5)
v.
Ga.
626 F.3d
its
face,"
Iqbal,
is
556 U.S.
factual allegations
Id.
filed suit seeking
liability payments
on
N.A.
defendant
are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not.
Turning to the instant case,
relief
that allows the
the
Ashcroft v.
"must
(N.D.
Inc.,
"plausible
the complaint must have enough "factual content
for
*2-3
Quicken Loans,
To be
the
is a Rule 12(b)(6)
contain
Sampson,
factual
judgment
due
(3)
and owing by
ERISA statutory
expenses,
this
including
action.
(Compl.,
With respect to Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the
pleadings,
outstanding
the Court will determine whether Defendant
withdrawal
liability
additional awards are warranted.
and,
if
so,
has any
whether
any
A.
Under
29
Unpaid Withdrawal Liability
U.S.C.
§
1381,
if
an
employer
withdraws
multiemployer plan in a complete or partial withdrawal,
employer
incurs
occurred,
the
employer's
amount],
"withdrawal
plan
sponsor
withdrawal
and collect
§ 1382.
More
employer's
liability."
shall
complete
the
or
schedule
1399(b)(1).
notify
[that amount]
for
soon as
plan
of
sponsor
to
the
employer
of
of
the
[that
the
plan
sponsor
§
demand payment
if done within
employer may ask
for
29 U.S.C.
After the plan sponsor's review,
U.S.C.
"shall
the
schedule
consider additional information.
29
However,
Id.
the notice,
review
amount
payments."
the plan sponsor
receiving
the
has
(i) the amount of the liability and
in accordance with the schedule."
ninety days
withdrawal
practicable after an
withdrawal,
liability
Thereafter,
the
a
then the
from the employer." 29 U.S.C.
xx[a]s
partial
shall notify the employer of
(ii)
"determine
liability,
specifically,
If
from a
inaccuracies
or
the
to
§ 1399(b)(2)(A).
should the employer still
be unsatisfied with the liability amount or the sheer existence
of
liability,
U.S.C.
§
it
can
1401(a)(1).
initiate
arbitration
Following
proceedings.
arbitration,
a
dissatisfied
party may file suit in a federal district court.
1401(b)(2).
"[e]ven
if
Yet,
the
as
indicated
employer
in
challenges
the
parties'
the
29
29 U.S.C. §
earlier
trustees'
suit,
withdrawal
liability determination ... it must still pay according to the
5
trustees'
schedule under the statute's
collection procedure."
Trust
Fund v.
Ferbar
xpay now,
dispute later'
Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension
Corp.
of
Cali.,
Inc.,
522
U.S.
192,
197
(1997) .
Regarding
the
instant
motion,
Plaintiffs
none of the following are in dispute:
is
a
multiemployer
Pension
Fund's
Lafontaine
(2)
"plan
withdrew
plan;
sponsor[s]";
from
the
prevail
if
(1) Plaintiff Pension Fund
Defendant
multiemployer
are
Defendant
plan;
will
is
(3)
(4)
an
employer
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
plan;
(5)
within
Rice
contend
Plaintiffs
and
that
notified
Defendant of the amount of withdrawal liability and the schedule
for its payment;
and,
(7)
(6) Plaintiffs demanded payment from Defendant;
Defendant
has
failed
to
make
one
or
more
withdrawal
liability payments.
In paragraph two of their complaint,
Plaintiff
meaning
admits
Pension
of
to
29
the
Fund
U.S.C.
is
a
multiemployer
§ 1301(a)(3).
allegations
in
Plaintiffs allege that
this
In
its
plan
within
answer,
paragraph.
the
Defendant
Consequently,
Plaintiff Pension Fund is a multiemployer plan.
In paragraph twelve of
their complaint,
Plaintiffs
allege
that Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
1002(5),
which
includes
"any
person
acting
directly
employer ... in relation to an employee benefit plan."
answer,
as
§
an
In its
Defendant admits to the allegations of this paragraph.
6
Additionally,
in paragraph sixteen of
its complaint,
Plaintiffs
allege that "Defendant had an obligation to make fringe benefit
contributions
admits
that
to
it
Consequently,
the
Pension
Fund."
"had and continues
based
on
these
In
its
to have"
answer,
Defendant
such an obligation.
admissions,
Defendant
is
an
employer within Plaintiff Pension Fund's multiemployer plan.
In
paragraphs
Plaintiffs
allege
representative
four
that
Jeffrey
trustees
discretionary
authority
management
the
seven,
of
Plaintiffs
through
of
six
Rice
the
and
and
control
that
Rice
their
Rory
Pension
Pension Fund and
allege
of
its
Lafontaine
Fund
with
who
respect
assets.
and
complaint,
are
exercise
to
the
In paragraph
Lafontaine
are
also
fiduciaries of the Pension Fund within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
§ 1002(21).
In its answer,
of these paragraphs.
"group
of
maintain
sponsors.
Thus, because a "plan sponsor" includes a
representatives
the
Defendant admits to the allegations
plan,"
of
the
Plaintiffs
Rice
parties
and
who
establish
Lafontaine
are
or
plan
29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(B).
In paragraph twenty-five,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
completely withdrew from the Pension Fund within the meaning of
29 U.S.C.
§ 1383(b)(2).
In paragraph twenty-seven,
allege that they sent a letter (Ex.
3,
Doc.
1-2)
Plaintiffs
by certified
mail to Defendant notifying it of its withdrawal liability, the
schedule
for
its
payment,
and
7
Plaintiffs'
demand
for
such
payment.
In
Plaintiff's
In
9,
quarterly
that
2015,
payment
has
January 30,
admits
that
Plaintiffs
their
demanded
counsel
was
due
acknowledged
such payment
Defendant
Defendant
thirty-three,
that
Defendant
any
answer,
it
not
is
made
or
the
on
allege
January
receiving
ever has
30,
the
been
quarterly
on
Defendant
from
that,
the
2015.
demand
due.
payment
on
Plaintiffs
are
Defendant.
that
these
excerpts
entitled
More
to
from
the
interim
specifically,
parties'
liability
denied
was
due
on
given
the
demand
1-2),
be,
Defendant
was,
Pension
January 30,
2015,
and
Fund
until
continues
$59,491.40
$2,416,913
to
each
the first of these quarterly payments.
and
(Ex. 3, Doc.
obligated
quarter,
from
letter
to
pay
beginning
in withdrawal
Yet, according to the pleadings,
pleadings,
payments
complaint
motion for
but
its
Consequently,
payment schedule attached to Plaintiffs'
paid.
In
2 015.
Based
Plaintiff
received
letter.
paragraph
February
answer,
its
liability is
Defendant has not made
As a result,
judgment on the pleadings is granted,
Plaintiffs'
and Defendant
must pay Plaintiff Pension Fund $59,491.40.x
1 As of today's date, Defendant should have already made three quarterly
payments.
(Ex. 3, Doc. 1-2.)
However, because the pleadings indicate that
Defendant has missed only one of these installments, the Court cannot order
Defendant to pay an amount greater than $59,491.40.
8
on
B.
Interest,
In
an
liability,
Statutory Damages, and Attorneys'
action
"any
to
failure
compel
of
an
the
employer
employer
to
to make
Fees and Costs
pay
withdrawal
any withdrawal
liability payment within the time prescribed2 shall be treated in
the same manner as a delinquent contribution
of 29 U.S.C.
§ 1145]."
29 U.S.C.
§ 1451(b).
[within the meaning
Therefore,
because
a multiemployer plan is entitled to interest,
statutory damages,
and
when
reasonable
attorneys'
fees
and
costs
successfully
bringing an action for delinquent contributions under 29 U.S.C.
§ 1145,
when
a multiemployer plan
bringing
payments.3
a
is also
successful
action
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).
has found Defendant
liable
entitled to these awards
for
withdrawal
liability
Accordingly, since the Court
for the unpaid withdrawal
liability
payment, Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the outstanding
payment,
costs.
statutory damages,
However,
and reasonable attorneys'
fees and
Plaintiffs are not entitled to the additional
liquidated damages and expenses requested in their complaint and
referenced within the parties'
trust agreement.
See Carpenters
2 Defendant contends that the phrase "within the time prescribed" refers to a
time period following an arbitrator's final decision.
However, because the
parties have yet to enter arbitration, much less receive a final decision in
arbitration, this argument is unpersuasive. Instead, the phrase "within the
time prescribed," as found in section 1451(b), refers to the deadlines set
forth by Plaintiffs' withdrawal liability schedule.
3 Here, the Court uses the term "statutory damages" to refer to the award
under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 that equals "the greater of —
(i) interest on the
unpaid contributions, or (ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan
in an amount not in excess of twenty percent (or such higher percentage as
may be permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined by the
court subparagraph (A)."
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C).
9
Sc
Joiners
(8th Cir.
Welfare
Fund v.
Gittleman
1988)(holding that
of the section 1132(g)(2)
the
Corp.,
"detail
remedy"
857
F.2d
476,
479
and comprehensiveness
indicates
that other remedies
should not be available).
To
determine
Defendant,
the
the
Court
interest
must
and
know
statutory
the
damages
interest
rate
liquidated damages provided for within the parties'
29
U.S.C.
(Ex.
1,
§
1132(g).
Doc.
1-2)
contributions
is
While
under
it appears
twelve
that
percent
their Articles
the interest
per
annum
and
afford
figures.
both
To
supporting
do
parties
so,
the
each party
documentation
with
opportunity
should
the
file
to
a
and
of
by
the
plan.
See
Agreement
rate on unpaid
the
liquidated
damages amount to ten percent of unpaid contributions,
will
owed
the Court
dispute
these
memorandum
Court.
and
Additionally,
Plaintiffs must provide sufficient information for the Court to
determine
the
reasonable
attorneys'
fees
and
costs
that
Defendant must pay.
Ill,
With this Order,
Other Motions
the Court has
granted Plaintiffs'
motion
for judgment on the pleadings and will instruct the Clerk to
enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
As a result, the Court
denies
Defendant's
as
moot
the
following motions:
motion
for
summary judgment (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary
10
judgment
(Doc.
35),
and Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiffs'
notice of intent to file reply brief (Doc.
IV,
For
for
the reasons
judgment
Defendant's
cross
on
motion
motion
for
CONCLUSION
above,
the
the
Court GRANTS
pleadings
for
(Doc.
summary
summary
40).
15)
judgment
judgment
Plaintiffs'
and
DENIES
(Doc.
(Doc.
motion
AS
MOOT
27),
Plaintiffs'
and
Defendant's
35),
motion to quash Plaintiffs'
notice of intent to file reply brief
(Doc.
the
40) .
Plaintiff
DIRECTS
Accordingly,
the
detailing
2015,
ORDERS
Defendant
Pension Fund $59#491.40 before November
Clerk
to
the
Court
Additionally,
2015,
Court
their
and
ENTER
ORDERS
attorneys'
DIRECTS
both
JUDGMENT
in
Plaintiffs
fees
parties
and
to
costs
file,
favor
to
of
file
pay
2015,
22,
to
and
Plaintiffs.
a
memorandum
before
November
16,
before
November
16,
any contentions to the aforementioned amounts for interest
and liquidated damages.
ORDER
October,
ENTERED
at
Augusta,
Georgia,
this
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?