Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 150 Pension Fund et al v. Muns Group, Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER granting 16 Motion to Strike; granting 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court directs the Pension Fund to file their computation of damages within twenty-one days. Defendants will have fourteen days to respond to the Fund's filing. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/26/2016. (thb)
IN THE UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT
AUGUSTA
FOR THE
OF GEORGIA
DIVISION
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS
*
LOCAL NO.
PENSION FUND and
*
RORY LAFONTAINE,
•
150
JEFFREY RICE,
JOHN LEWIS ROBERTSON, LARRY L.
HALL, JR., and CLAY HARLEY, as
Trustees of the Pension Fund,
*
*
•
*
l:15-cv-200
*
Plaintiffs,
v.
*
MUNS GROUP, INC., MUNS
MECHANICAL, INC., and C&M
EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC.,
Defendants.
*
ORDER
This
case
concerns
a
dispute
between
Plaintiffs
Plumbers
and Steamfitters Local 150 Pension Fund and its trustees Jeffrey
Rice, Rory Lafontaine,
and Clay Harley
and
John Lewis Robertson,
Larry L. Hall,
Jr.,
(collectively "the Pension Fund" or "the Fund")
Defendants
Muns
Equipment
Leasing,
Mechanical
Inc.
As
Group,
Inc.,
will
Inc.,
and
Muns
Mechanical,
non-party
Muns
be discussed in detail
Inc.,
C&M
Welding
and
below,
this
is
the third case concerning this dispute between the Pension Fund
and Muns Welding Mechanical,
The
and
to
Pension
strike
Fund's
Inc.
motions
Defendants'
for
judgment
affirmative
on
the
pleadings
defenses
are
presently
before the Court.
(Docs.
16,
17.)
For the reasons below,
the
Court GRANTS both motions.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arose from a dispute between the Pension Fund,
multiemployer employee pension benefit plan,
Welding
and
employers.
the
Fund
Mechanical
According
until
Inc.
to
(Compl.
accelerated
withdrawal
18;
1
Answer
brings
this
I
18.)
one
Pension
the
September
completely.
("MWM"),
Fund,
30,
17.)
2014
The
liability
As
action
be
of
its
the
participating
MWM participated in
time
it
withdrew
Fund calculated MWM's
$2,416,913.
below,
recover
and non-party Muns
which
Pension
to
explained
to
at
a
the
(Compl.
Pension
accelerated
Fund
1
now
withdrawal
liability of $2,416,913 from entities related to MWM.
Before
Court
discussing
addresses
involving
these
complaint
relevant
against
Charles
I.
Steamfitters
the
parties.
the
Hardigee,
Local
present
background
In
Pension
the
150,
case
business
seeking
more
from
February
Fund's
in
detail,
previous
2015,
MWM
the
cases
filed
a
Board
of
Trustees
and
manager
of
Plumbers
and
declaratory
and
injunctive
relief in an attempt to establish that it was not liable to the
Pension Fund for failing to make contributions.
Mech.,
Inc. v. Bd. of Trs.
50 Pension Fund,
Ga.
Feb.
2,
2015)
No.
Muns Welding &
Of Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No.
l:15-cv-17,
Compl.,
("Muns Welding I") .
Doc.
1 If
31-49
(S.D.
Soon after, the Pension
Fund
filed
its
own
installment
payment
Steamfitters
Local
Mech.,
6,
suit
in
on withdrawal
No.
50
("Muns
Welding
Fund
Compl.,
II") .
Court
seeking
liability.
Pension
Inc., No. l:15-cv-38,
2015)
this
See
v.
April
2,
single
Plumbers
Muns
Doc. 1 SI 47
On
a
Welding
&
and
(S.D. Ga. Mar.
2015,
the
Court
granted the Pensions Fund's motion to dismiss in Muns Welding I
on
the
grounds
that
ERISA mandates
that
disputes be addressed in arbitration.
Doc.
withdrawal-liability
Muns Welding
letters
dated
February
9,
2015
and
the
Pension Fund mailed
June
4,
2015
installment payments on the withdrawal liability.
4-6;
Pension
Answer
(Compl.
Under
time
1
29
the
Additionally,
it
§
Pension
to
1401(a)(1)(A),
Fund
notified
initiate
Fund's
2015,
determination
demanded
that
(Compl. SI 25,
20,
2015,
29
U.S.C.
MWM
MWM
had
of
arbitration
from the
the
sixty
its
Fund.
§ 1399(b)(2)(B).
days
from
the
complete-withdrawal
proceedings
challenging
withdrawal-liability determination.
Answer SI 26.)
28,
March
demanding
had reviewed and confirmed its
See
(Compl.
Defendant never filed arbitration and never
made any installment payments.
July
on
MWM had completely withdrawn
Answer 1 26);
U.S.C.
Pension
26;
25.)
that
26;
determination
1
SI
Fund notified MWM that
determination
the
Order,
46.
While these cases were proceeding,
Ex.
I,
the
a
accelerated
Pension
default
(Compl.
Fund
occurred
withdrawal
SI 27;
Answer SI 27.)
notified
and
that
liability
in
MWM
the
of
Pension
the
amount
On
its
Fund
of
$2,416,913.
admit
(Compl.
that
they
SI
On October 30,
found
for
MWM
6;
made
Answer
SI
payment
28.)
Defendants
the
accelerated
on
(Compl. SI 25; Answer SI 25.)
2015,
judgment
liable
Ex.
not
have
withdrawal liability.
motion
28,
on
to
the Court granted the Pensions Fund's
the
the
pleadings
Pension
Fund
in
Muns
for
the
Welding
first
II
and
installment
payment of $59,491.40.
(Compl. SI 21, Ex. 1; Answer SI 21); Muns
Welding II, Order,
44 at 8.
Doc.
At the Court's direction,
Clerk entered judgment in the
Pension Fund's
MWM
SI
for
$59,491.40.
Judgment,
Doc.
(Compl.
45.
MWM
21,
failed
to
entered bankruptcy on November 20,
Answer SISI 19,
now
2);
satisfy
2015.
favor and against
Muns
(Compl.
II,
judgment
the
Welding
and
SIS! 21,
23,
24;
23-24. )
The
Ex.
the
Fund
Court
filed
Defendants
a
returns
Complaint
Muns
Group,
Equipment Leasing,
31.)
on
instant
Muns
liability of
Mechanical
$2,416,913.
MWM
that they are
under
§ 1.414 (c)-2 (b) ,
members
of
MWM's
the
Pension
alleging
Inc.,
and
that
C&M
SI
SISI 29-
(Answer SI 36.)
Defendants
in a parent-subsidiary relationship
applicable
(Compl.
(Compl.
Jr. owns a 100% interest in
all Defendants and in non-party MWM.
with
2015
The
MWM is not a party to this case.
non-party Richard Lee Muns,
further admit
16,
case.
are jointly and severally liable for the
As mentioned previously,
However,
the
December
Inc.,
Inc.
accelerated withdrawal
to
34;
controlled
treasury
Answer
group
and
SI
regulation,
34),
that
26
and that
Defendants
C.F.R.
they are
and
MWM
constitute
(Compl.
a
"single
payment
for
Defendants'
parties
deny
and assert
38-40.)
motion
under
29
U.S.C.
§
1301(b)(1).
SI 38; Answer SI 38.)
Defendants
SISI
employer"
On
liability
five
on
affirmative
acknowledge
the
affirmative
February
judgment
for
11,
the
the
defenses.
2016,
the
pleadings
defenses.
accelerated
(Docs.
(Answer
Pension
and
a
motion
of
at
Fund
16-17.)
overlapping nature
withdrawal
1-4,
filed
to
a
strike
Because both
the motions,
the
Court addresses the motions together.
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
12(c),
"[a]fter
the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a
party may move
12(c).
"where
for judgment on the pleadings."
However,
there
are
R.
Civ.
P.
a judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate
no
material
party is entitled to
City of W.
Fed.
Palm Beach,
facts
in
dispute
judgment as a matter
250 F.3d 1299,
1300
and
the
of'law."
moving
Cannon v.
(11th Cir.
2001).
A
fact is "material" if "it might affect the outcome of the suit
under
Lobby,
the
governing
Inc.,
477
[substantive]
U.S.
242,
247
law."
(1986).
Anderson
"In
v.
other
Liberty
words,
a
judgment on the pleadings alone, if sustained, must be based on
the undisputed facts appearing in all the pleadings." Stanton v.
Larsh,
239 F.2d 104,
106 (5th Cir.
1957).
The
same
legal
as
those
standards
governing
Outdoor Creations,
1283,
Rule
Rule
12(b)(6)
12(c)
motions
motions
to
are
dismiss.
the
Roma
Inc. v. City of Cumming, Ga., 558 F. Supp. 2d
(N.D.
1284
governing
Ga.
2008)
("A
motion
for
judgment
on
the
pleadings is subject to the same standard as is a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss.").
Therefore,
contain
sufficient
that is
^plausible on its
Sampson,
No.
Mar.
2012)
1187,
20,
1196
factual
Pension Fund's complaint "must
matter
to
state
a
claim
face.'" JP Morgan Chase Bank,
1:10-cv-1666,
2012
WL
949698,
at
*2-3
(quoting Wooten v. Quicken Loans,
(11th Cir.
for
2010)).
To
be
on
N.A.
v.
(N.D.
Ga.
626
F.3d
Inc.,
"plausible
relief
its
face,"
the complaint must have enough "factual content that allows the
Court
to
draw
the
reasonable
inference
liable for the misconduct alleged."
662,
678
(2009).
that
the
Ashcroft v.
In applying this standard,
Iqbal,
Below,
Fund
can
the
Court
pleadings
regarding
discusses
whether
a
Id.
prima
by addressing whether the
facie
Defendants'
the
556 U.S.
DISCUSSION
begins
demonstrate
is
factual allegations
are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not.
III.
defendant
for
liability.
affirmative
preclude judgment on the pleadings.
case
defenses
judgment
The
Pension
on
Court
Defendants
the
then
assert
A. The
Pension
Liability
In Muns
Fund
Fund's
II,
the
Court
for
MWM
to
to
Welding
prevail
payment,
and
Claim
for
Accelerated
stated that
be
liable
Withdrawal
for
the
for
the
Pension
installment
seven requirements must be met:
(1)
Plaintiff
Pension
Fund
is
a
multiemployer plan; (2) [MWM] is an employer
within Pension Fund's multiemployer plan;
(3) Plaintiffs Rice and Lafontaine are "plan
sponsor[s]";
(4)
Plaintiffs
contend
that
[MWM] withdrew from the plan;
(5)
Plaintiffs
notified
of
withdrawal
[MWM]
of
the
amount
liability and the schedule for its payment;
(6) Plaintiffs demanded payment from [MWM];
and,
(7)
[MWM]
has
failed
to
make
one
or
more withdrawal liability payments.
Muns
Welding
admissions
II,
Doc.
contained
requirements
and
44
in
payments
from
requirements
Defendants
(Compl.
1
2;
(Compl.
1
17;
John
Lewis
Pension
different
Fund
that
Answer
the
1
Answer 1
Robertson,
plan sponsors;
Fund determined
seeks
that
each
Fund]
of
to
accelerated
in
Just
same.
this
as
the
these
interim
withdrawal
action,
the
legal
in Muns Welding
II,
seven requirements mentioned above.
Pension
2);
MWM
17);
(3)
Larry L.
Fund
is
an
is
a multiemployer
employer
Jeffrey Rice,
Hall,
Jr.,
(Compl. 11 4-8; Answer M
that
found
established
Pension
defendants
establish the
admit
[the
Court
at 8.
are nearly the
the pleadings
The
Answer
"entitled
the
6.
MWM's
payments from [MWM]." Id.
Although
at
MWM withdrew
and
4-8);
from the
with
plan
the
plan
Rory LaFontaine,
Clay
(4)
plan
Harley
the
(Compl.
are
Pension
1
18;
Answer 1 18.J1; the Pension Fund notified MWM and the Defendants
of the amount
payment,
in
1
28,
(Compl.
demanded
Ex.
payment
6; Answer,
1
Ex.
and
for
that
the
Pension Fund
liability
the accelerated withdrawal liability.
only
additional
Defendants
the
28);
withdrawal
(Compl.
1
(7) Defendants have failed to make
can be
issue
raised
(Compl.
1
25;
accelerated
in
this
case
is
whether
treated as a controlled group and single
employer with MWM and therefore be
for
accelerated
1
6; Answer,
Defendants
28);
the
schedule for its
25.)
The
the
liability and the
particular,
from
payment on
Answer 1
withdrawal
including,
liability
28,
of
withdrawal
employees of trades or
jointly and severally liable
liability.
businesses
ERISA
(whether or
not
states,
"all
incorporated)
which are under common control shall be treated as employed by a
single employer and all
such trades and businesses
employer."
29
1301(b)(1).
constitute
a
U.S.C.
controlled
under § 1301(b)(1).
1
§
Defendants
group
and
Defendants
a
single
as
admit
employer
a single
that
with
they
MWM
(Compl. 1 38; Answer 1 38.)
dispute
the
Pension
Fund's
conclusion
that
Defendants defaulted on their payment obligations.
However, they do
not dispute that the Pension Fund determined they were in default and
notified them of that default.
(Compl. 1 28, Ex. 6; Answer, 1 28.)
For
purposes
admissions
are
of
Plaintiff's
sufficient.
As
withdrawal
this
liability
Court has
claim,
those
previously explained,
and discusses again below,
Defendants must dispute Plaintiff's
determination in an arbitration proceeding before disputing liability
in this Court.
See Muns Welding I, Doc.
46 at 19.
The
Court
is
therefore
satisfied
that
Defendants,
along
with MWM, constitute a single employer under § 1301(b)(1), and,
together
with
accelerated
Defendants
MWM,
have
withdrawal
are
failed
to
liability.
liable,
the
make
Before
Court
turns
payments
on
determining
to
their
the
whether
affirmative
defenses.
B. Defendants'
In
their
Defenses
Answer,
Defendants
raised
the
affirmative defenses which the Court addresses
following
five
below.
1. Judgment-Enforcement Theory
Defendants'
first
defense
is
that
the
Pension
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
brief
in
appear
opposition
to
contend
interpreted
Welding II
to
to
that
seek
judgment
the
on
Pension
enforcement
the
the
fails
to
Based on their
pleadings,
Fund's
of
Fund
Defendants
Complaint
should be
judgment
from
Muns
and therefore fails to state a claim for accelerated
withdrawal liability.
Defendants'
with
a
simple
judgment-enforcement defense can be
hypothetical.
Plaintiff
A
sues
illustrated
Defendant
seeking a single withdrawal-liability installment payment.
court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff A.
brings
suit
against
controlled
group
payment.
In
as
these
Defendant
Y,
who
Defendant
X,
for
circumstances,
is
X
The
Plaintiff A then
part
of
the
same
the
same
installment
courts
have
found
that
Plaintiff
A's
second
enforcement because,
and thus
jointly
the
a
single
action
in
the
nature
of
judgment
as a member of the same controlled group,
employer
under
§
1301(b)(1),
Defendant
Y
is
and severally liable on the first judgment concerning
same
installment
Trucking Emps.
payment.
of N.
than
brought
six
the
controlled
years
instant
group
See
generally Bd.
Jersey Welfare
Able Truck Rental Corp.,
("More
is
822
F.
later,
with
Supp.
on
action,
Fund,
Trucking,
Trs.
Inc.-Pension
1091,
1093
September
alleging
of
30,
that
defendants
as
are
Fund v.
(D.N.J.
1991,
of
1993)
the
members
Fund
of
responsible
a
for
the judgment previously entered against Trucking.")/ Bd. of Trs.
of
Trucking Emps.
v.
Gotham
Fuel
of N.
Corp.,
Defendants
argue
enforcement
of
Jersey Welfare
860
that
the
F.
Supp.
the
1044,
Pension
judgement
in
Fund,
Inc.-Pension
1050
Fund's
Muns
(D.N.J.
1993).
Complaint
Welding
II
and
Fund
seeks
that
the
Fund's recovery is therefore limited to $59,491.49 plus interest
equal to $4,726.71 and attorneys'
Defendants'
detail
for
in
Part
relief
in
argument
II.B.2
Muns
brings in this case.
seeks
$2,416,913.00
interest
and
costs,
fees.
fails
of
this
Welding
because,
Order,
II
is
in
Muns
with
Muns
Welding
II,
Compl.,
10
Pension
from
withdrawal
Welding
sought a single installment payment.
1A1
explained
in
Fund's
the
more
claim
claim
it
the Pension Fund's Complaint
accelerated
while
the
different
Specifically,
for
as
II
liability,
the
Pension
(Compare Compl.,
Doc.
1,
SI
47.)
plus
Fund
Doc.
It
1,
goes
without
saying that
a plaintiff who
sues
on
a different
claim
than one litigated in a prior case cannot be seeking to enforce
the prior judgment.
The Court, therefore, declines to interpret
the Pension Fund's claim as seeking the enforcement of the Muns
Welding II judgment.
2. Res Judicata
The
bulk
judicata
of
Defendants'
defense.
Because
response
the
brief
pleadings
its
res
that
the
addresses
establish
Pension Fund's present claim is different from the claim in Muns
Welding II and it
arose after that case was
filed,
Defendants'
res judicata defense fails as a matter of law.
As
discussed
Welding
concerns
II
above,
concerned
(1997),
withdrawal
the
"calculate the
payment";
installment
Supreme
(2)
due
Court
set
the
under
also
Bay
Court
the
a
Laundry
not
exist
a
&
(1)
trustees'
explained
to
11
schedule.
that,
acceleration,
collect
employer
payments
Cleaning
522 U.S.
of
action
the
Id.
192,
for
trustees
and demand
defaults
"[l]ike
no right,
case
Dry
schedule of installments,
withdrawing
Muns
in accelerated
cause
until:
in
this
while
of California,
held that
the plan has
sue
Complaint
payment
Area
installment creditor,
to
Fund's
interest and costs,
Ferbar Corp.
does
debt,
and
In
Supreme
liability
Pension
installment
plus
liability.
Pension Trust Fund v.
202
an
$2,416,913.00,
withdrawal
the
at
the
on
202.
an
The
typical
absent default and
before
they
are
due,
and it has no obligation to accelerate on default." Id. at 208,
210.
When the
made
Pension
a demand on
11/
2015 that
the
Compl. 1 33/
28,
that
withdrawal
first
were
in
the
accelerated
default
Pension
and
1
(Compl.
withdrawal
II,
it had only
Muns
Welding
Ex. 3). It was not until July
Fund notified Defendants
liability.
Accordingly,
Welding
installment payment.
(Compl., Doc. 1,
the
Defendants
Fund filed Muns
Ex.
could
liability
its
demanded
28,
Fund
of
at
determination
the
6,
not
accelerated
Answer
SI
28.)
sued
for
filed
Muns
have
the
time
that
it
the
Welding II.
So
far,
the
Court
has
found
Pension
Fund's
installment-payment claim in Muns Welding II is independent from
its
claim for accelerated withdrawal
payments
in
this
case
and
that the Fund could not have brought the accelerated-withdrawal-
liability
below,
claim
those
when
it
filed
findings
Muns
Welding
necessitate
the
II.
As
conclusion
explained
that
res
judicata does not bar the Pension Fund's claim in this case.
Federal courts
which
they
sit.
Cty.,
Ga.,
708
statutory
res
apply the res judicata law of
Starship
F.3d 1243,
judicata
(Ga.
1991).
1252-54
rule
standing common-law rule.
682
Enters,
Georgia
is
of
Atlanta,
(11th Cir.
a
Fowler v.
Inc.
2013).
codification
Vineyard,
law provides
that
the state in
of
405
"[a]
v.
Coweta
Georgia's
its
long
S.E.2d 678,
judgment of
a
court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the
12
same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or
which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the
cause
wherein
the
judgment was
reversed or set aside."
rendered until
the
judgment
is
O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40 (emphasis added).
Defendants argue that the Pension Fund should have amended
its
Complaint
default that
due."
"to
sue
for
any
liability
occurred after the
first
(Defs.' Br., Doc. 23 at 5-6.)
requires parties
issue."
O.C.G.A.
that
arose
9-12-40.
any
quarterly payment became
Georgia law, however,
to bring claims that "might have
§
from
The
Eleventh
only
been put
Circuit,
in
while
applying Alabama law has held that "for res judicata purposes,
claims that
the
time
^could have been brought'
the
asserted by
action."
Cir.
original
supplemental
Manning v.
1992) .
could
The
not
have
claim when
complaint
it
is
pleadings
concludes
brought
the
filed Muns
filed
or
City of Auburn,
Court
are claims in existence at
or
otherwise
953
that
F.2d
because
actually
claims
in
the
1355,
the
earlier
1360
Pension
(11th
Fund
accelerated-withdrawal-liability
Welding
II
in March
2015,
Defendants'
res judicata defense fails as a matter of law.
3. Waiver and Collateral Estoppel
Defendants'
for
"the
waiver
similar
reasons.
issues
decided
and
identical
to
the
In
by
case
their
this
now
collateral
Answer,
Court
before
13
estoppel
in
this
defenses
Defendants
[Muns
Court,
claim
Welding
except
II]
that
fail
that
are
[the
Pension
Fund
is]
Defendants'
now
attempting
liability
that
to
avoid
were
the
limitations
clearly
and
on
expressly
established" in the Court's Muns Welding II Order.
(Answer at
3.)
As an initial matter,
the Court disagrees with Defendants'
characterization of its Muns Welding II Order granting judgment
on the pleadings.
MWM's or Defendants'
The
Order makes
first
liability to a single installment payment.
clear
installment
that
payment
judgment
because
established by the pleadings.
at
8
n.l.
Simply
recovery to
it
the
indefinitely limit
In no way did the Court
put,
first
was
only
that was
rendered
the
only
Court
limited
the
Doc. 44,
Pension
installment payment because
the
liability
Muns Welding II, Order,
the
on
that
Fund's
is
what
sued to recover.
More
discussed
to
the
above,
point,
the
collateral
estoppel
described
the
"permissive"
Therefore,
accelerated
payment.
the
largely
does
not
defenses
statutory
Bay
Fund
does
bringing
collateral
reasons
Defendants'
The
waiver
provision
as
Laundry,
U.S.
a
522
waive
suit
estoppel
fees.
14
or
acceleration
not
Supreme
for
preclude
its
an
at
right
208.
to
installment
this
claim for the full $2,416,913 in withdrawal liability,
and attorneys'
as
has
did
by
same
Court
Area
Pension
the
find
credible.
nature.
payments
Nor
Court
MPPAA's
in
for
separate
interest,
4. Bankruptcy Stay
In their Answer,
based on
the
stay associated with MWM's
response brief,
this
Defendants asserted an affirmative defense
defense.
Defendants
(Defs.'
bankruptcy.
In
they wish to
withdraw
indicate that
Br.,
Doc.
23
at
13.)
The
Court
their
GRANTS
this request.
5. Labor-Dispute Defense
Defendants
making
that
contributions
approximately
makes
argue
them
September
exempt
§ 1398(2),
to
which
a
labor dispute
the
Pension
Fund
They
contend
2015.
from
withdrawal
provides
prevented them from
that
between
that
liability
"an
2013
the
under
employer
dispute
29
shall
and
U.S.C.
not
be
considered to have withdrawn from a plan solely because ... an
employer
dispute
Fund
suspends
involving
argues
that
contributions
under
its
employees."
the
MPPAA
the
For
required
plan
its
during
part,
Defendants
the
to
a
labor
Pension
make
this
argument in an arbitration proceeding and that their failure to
do so precludes this affirmative defense.
This
Court
previously
stated
Defendants'
labor-dispute
arbitration.
Muns Welding I, Order,
that
argument
the
must
Doc.
46 at
MPPAA
requires
be
raised
in
19.
Defendants'
failure to initiate arbitration proceedings within the sixty-day
period
resulted
in
default,
therefore "due and owing."
and
the
29 U.S.C.
15
withdrawal
liability
is
§ 1401(a)(1),
(b)(1).
In
short,
Defendants
missed
their
opportunity
to
raise
this
affirmative defense and it is precluded by their default.
For
the
Defendants'
reasons
discussed
affirmative defenses
IV.
For
Pension
(Doc.
the
pleadings
jointly
and
(Doc.
and
contributions,
reasonable
the
to
16) .
strike
interest
§ 1132(g)(2).
as
Court
a
finds
that
matter of law.
on
the
Defendants'
motion
Court
liable
fees
fail
above,
Fund's
The
severally
the
CONCLUSION
Pension
attorneys'
all
discussed
Fund's motion
17)
U.S.C.
reasons
above,
to
the
and
finds
of
GRANTS
affirmative
for
that
on
the
Defendants
are
for
unpaid
contributions,
the
the
defenses
judgment
Plaintiff
unpaid
costs
Court
action
under
and
29
The Court DIRECTS the Pension Fund to file
their computation of damages within TWENTY-ONE DAYS.
Defendants
will have FOURTEEN DAYS to respond to the Fund's filing.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,
August,
Georgia,
this Ck&"
2016.
HSJJOHAB^E J./*ANDAL HALL
UNITEDSTATES
DISTRICT
JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
16
day of
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?