Teamsters Union Pension Trust Fund Trustees of the et al v. Underground Incorporated

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Local No 142 Teamsters Union Pension Trust Fund Trustees and ENTERING judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $28,643.50. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 4/23/14. (kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS UNION
NO. 142 PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF
THE TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL
NO. 142 TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIP
TRUST FUND, and TRUSTEES OF THE
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 142
ANNUITY FUND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNDERGROUND INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-73-APR

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 13] filed by the
plaintiffs on October 31, 2013. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Background
The defendant, Underground, Inc., entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
the Union for the period of June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2013. The agreement later was
extended through May 31, 2014. The CBA requries Underground to make periodic contributions
on behalf of its employees to the plaintiffs’ Pension Fund, Training and Apprentice Fund, and
Annuity Fund in the amounts established by the CBA. The undisputed evidence shows that
Underground failed to pay the required contributions into the funds from March 2012 through
August 2012. Underground signed an agreement for payment of arrearage in October 2012,
agreeing to pay delinquent contributions to all three funds, plus interest and attorney fees.
1

Underground made the initial payment under the agreement, but subsequent payments have been
inconsistent. Underground also failed to pay current contributions after the agreement to pay the
arrearage was entered and has not made a payment pursuant to the agreement since May 2013.
As a signatory to the CBA, Underground also was bound by the Restated Agreement and
Declaration of Trust. The trust agreement provides that if Underground is delinquent in
contributions, the trustees may take any steps necessary to collect the funds, and Underground
must pay interest on all money due and all expenses of collection incurred by the trustees,
including costs and legal fees. The trust also requires that Underground pay 10% per annum
interest on any unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and costs.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2013. Underground
did not file a response and the time to do so has passed.
Discussion
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper only if it
is demonstrated that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106
S. Ct. 2548 , 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 964 (7th Cir. 2012);
Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009). The burden is upon the moving party
to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a
genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company,
398 U.S. 144, 160, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1610, 26 L. Ed.2d 142, 155 (1970); Stephens, 569 F.3d at
786. A fact is material if it is outcome determinative under applicable law. There must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty

2

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986); Stephens,
569 F.3d at 786; Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). However, summary
judgment may be entered against the non-moving party if it is unable to “establish the existence
of an essential element to [the party’s] case, and on which [that party] will bear the burden of
proof at trial . . .”. Kidwell, 679 F.3d at 964 (citing Benuzzi v. Bd. of Educ., 647 F.3d 652, 662
(7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d
265 (1986)).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine whether the
evidence presented by the party opposed to the summary judgment is such that a reasonable jury
might find in favor of that party after a trial.
The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining
whether there is the need for a trial--whether, in other words, there
are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by
a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of
either party.
[T]his standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which is that the trial judge
must direct a verdict if, under the governing law, there can be but one
reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505,
2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986).
See also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109,
147 L. Ed.2d 105, 120-22 (2000) (setting out the standard for a directed verdict); Celotex Corp., 477
U.S. at 322-23, 106 S. Ct. at 2553; Stephens, 569 F.3d at 786; Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539
F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir. 2008)(stating that a genuine issue is one on which a reasonable fact finder
could find for the nonmoving party); Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 483 (7th Cir.

3

2008)(stating that a genuine issue exists and summary judgment is inappropriate if there is sufficient
evidence for a jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party).
Title 29 U.S.C. § 1145 states that “[e]very employer who is obligated to make contributions
to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained
agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with
the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” The plan may enforce agreements against
the employer. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck
Service, Inc., 870 F.2d 1148, 1149 (7th Cir. 1989).
The CBA agreement required Underground to make contributions to the funds for all
employees who performed work described in the CBA.

The evidence is undisputed that

Underground failed to make the required contributions in accordance with ERISA and the CBA.
The plaintiffs claimed that the contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney fees amount
to $28,643.50. Underground does not dispute that it owes this amount. Because Underground has
failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact remains pending with regard to either its liability
or the amount due, the court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion and ENTERS judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs in the amount of $28,643.50.
ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2014
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

4