Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds v. Crawford Pile Driving, LLC et al

Filing 67

OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Summary Judgment. Proposed Final Judgment is due by 4/30/2020. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.638

Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DETROIT CARPENTERS
FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 18-10932
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CRAWFORD PILE DRIVING, LLC,
and TODD A. CRAWFORD,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 64)
Plaintiff Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds (“Plaintiff” or “Funds”)
filed this suit against Defendants Crawford Pile Driving, LLC and Todd A.
Crawford, alleging violation of (i) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., by failing to turn over plan assets when due
and using plan assets for purposes other than payment to the Funds and thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties and (ii) the Michigan Builders Trust Fund Act
(“MBTFA”), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 570.151 et seq., by retaining, using, or
appropriating funds held in trust for purposes other than the payment of fringe
benefit contributions accrued for the benefit of the individual carpenters employed
by Defendants or to pay other valid Builders Trust Fund claims. (Compl., ECF

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.639

Page 2 of 11

No. 1 at Pg. ID 3-9.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment filed on March 19, 2020. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff seeks
summary judgment as to its ERISA claim and requests damages including
outstanding fringe benefits, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys’ fees and costs. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Factual Background
The Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds, a voluntary association,
consists of representatives and agents of various funds, each of which is a trust
fund established pursuant to the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947
(“LMRA”), as amended by 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., and ERISA, as amended by 29
U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 2.) Plaintiff is a trustee of the
funds, on whose behalf, and on behalf of whose beneficiaries, this action is filed.
(Id.)
Defendants, who engaged in the business of commercial construction
contracting, entered into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with a union.1

Plaintiff contends that Defendants entered into the CBA with the Michigan
Regional Council of Carpenters and Construction Association of Michigan, the
successor to the Carpenters District Council of Detroit, (see ECF No. 64 at Pg. ID
443), while Defendants contend that they entered into the CBA with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and that Detroit Carpenters
2

1

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.640

Page 3 of 11

The CBA requires Defendants to make payments constituting employee benefits
earned by Defendants’ employees who were either members, or fell within the
jurisdiction, of the union. (Id. at Pg. ID 467-68.) The parties agree that these
payments were to be paid to Plaintiff. (Id. at Pg. ID 468.) Pursuant to the CBA,
Defendants submitted their books and records to Plaintiff for an accounting to
verify the accuracy of the contributions made to Plaintiff.
On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff determined a deficiency for fringe benefits paid
in the amount of $36,459.88 for the period January 1, 2014 through February 28,
2017 (“First Audit” and “First Audit Period”). (Whatley Aff., ECF No. 64-6 at Pg.
ID 601.) In addition, Plaintiff determined that outstanding liquidated damages
totaled $7,291.97 and prejudgment interest totaled $19,580.41. (Id. at Pg. ID 602.)
Plaintiff also determined a deficiency for fringe benefits paid in the amount
of $154,432.31 for the period August 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018 (“Second
Audit” and “Second Audit Period”). (Id. at Pg. ID 603.) In addition, Plaintiff
determined that outstanding liquidated damages totaled $30,886.46 and
prejudgment interest totaled $43,738.31. (Id. at Pg. ID 603-04.)

Union is either an intended beneficiary of the CBA or a direct party to the CBA,
(ECF No. 64-3 at Pg. ID 467-68).
3

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.641

Page 4 of 11

As of the day Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants
have not paid the amount owed for either audit period. (Whatley Aff., ECF No.
64-6.)
Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 21, 2018, seeking the amount owed
under the First Audit Period. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On November 21, 2018,
Plaintiff filed another complaint against Defendants, seeking the same for the
amount owed under the Second Audit Period. (See No. 2:18-cv-13642.) The two
cases were consolidated on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 27.)
Defendants’ actions (and inactions) have made the discovery process less
than smooth. On August 8, 2019, Defendants were (i) adjudged in civil contempt
of court for their failure to comply with the Court’s March 5 and 26, 2019
discovery orders; (ii) ordered to pay the reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees
incurred by Plaintiff in filing its Petition for Order to Show Cause and participating
in the court proceedings related thereto; and (iii) ordered to immediately produce
any outstanding discovery responsive to Plaintiff’s July 19, 2018 discovery
requests, without objection, or face additional, and possibly more severe, sanctions.
(Order, ECF No. 42.)
On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to
appear for depositions. (ECF No. 51 at Pg. ID 340.) On February 12, 2020, the
4

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.642

Page 5 of 11

Court entered a Stipulated Discovery Order Regarding Deposition by Written
Questions (“Discovery Order”), which resolved Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
(ECF No. 62.) The Discovery Order stated that “Defendants shall be deemed to
have admitted the Plaintiffs’ fringe benefit contribution calculations set forth in
their [First and Second] [A]udits are accurate if they fail to respond to the
Deposition By Written Questions with specific responses supported by specific
documentary evidence on or before Friday, February 28, 2020.” (Id. at Pg. ID 43132.) Defendants did not respond to the Deposition by Written Questions. (Fisher
Aff., ECF No. 64-8.)
On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF
No. 64.) More than 21 days elapsed, yet Defendants had not responded to the
motion. See E.D. MICH. L.R. 7.1(e)(1)(B). On April 13, the Court ordered that
Defendants shall show cause, in writing, no later than April 20, why Plaintiff’s
motion should not be granted. (ECF No. 66.) The Court noted that, in the event
Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the order, the Court would decide Plaintiff’s
motion promptly. (Id. at Pg. ID 636-37.) Defendants did not respond to the
Court’s order.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
5

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.643

Page 6 of 11

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The central inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52 (1986). After adequate time for discovery and upon motion, Rule 56
mandates summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party bears the burden
of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The movant has the initial burden of showing “the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. Once the movant meets this burden, the
“nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To
demonstrate a genuine issue, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence
upon which a jury could reasonably find for that party; a “scintilla of evidence” is
insufficient. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252. The court must accept as true the
non-movant’s evidence and draw “all justifiable inferences” in the non-movant’s
favor. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255 (citation omitted).
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed” must
designate specifically the materials in the record supporting the assertion,
6

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.644

Page 7 of 11

“including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Notably, the trial court is not required to construct a
party’s argument from the record or search out facts from the record supporting
those arguments. See, e.g., St. v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80
(6th Cir. 1989) (citing Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029, 1034 (D.C.
Cir. 1988)).
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
(i) Defendants’ Liability
Pursuant to ERISA, a district court has jurisdiction over an action brought by
benefit plan trustees to enforce an employer’s obligation to make fringe benefit
contributions. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(E)(1), 1145; Laborers Health & Welfare
Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539, 546-47 (1988).
According to 29 U.S.C. § 1145, “[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.”
Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion and have failed to
offer evidence contesting Plaintiff’s factual assertions. See Street v. J.C. Bradford
7

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.645

Page 8 of 11

& Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989) (“The respondent cannot rely on the
hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial of a disputed fact, but
must ‘present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion
for summary judgment.”’). The Court’s review of the record reveals no evidence
that would cast doubt on Plaintiff’s assertions regarding Defendants’ failure to pay
contributions.
The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment
against Defendants. See Clark v. City of Dublin, 178 F. App’x 522, 524-25 (6th
Cir. 2006) (finding the district court “properly granted summary judgment because
the Appellant failed to meet his Rule 56 burden” when appellant “did not properly
respond to the arguments asserted” by appellees and therefore abandoned his
claim); Brown v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 545 F. App’x 368, 372 (6th Cir.
2013) (“This Court’s jurisprudence on abandonment of claims is clear: a plaintiff
is deemed to have abandoned a claim when a plaintiff fails to address it in response
to a motion for summary judgment.”).
(ii) Damages
Plaintiff seeks judgment in the amount of $317,529.63 plus attorneys’ fees
and costs. (ECF No. 64 at Pg. ID 452.) 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) provides:
In any action under this title by a fiduciary for or on behalf
of a plan to enforce [29 U.S.C. § 1145] in which a
judgment in favor of the plan is awarded,
the court shall award the plan –
8

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.646

Page 9 of 11

(A) the unpaid contributions,
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,
(C) an amount equal to 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 20 percent (or such
higher percentage as may be permitted under
Federal or State law) of the amount determined by
the court under subparagraph (A),
(D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, to
be paid by the defendant, and
(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems
appropriate.
Plaintiff seeks a total of $190,892.19 in unpaid contributions for the First
Audit Period ($36,459.88) and Second Audit Period ($154,432.31) as of March 1.
(ECF No. 64 at Pg. ID 452.) This amount is supported by the affidavit of Kem
Whatley, an auditor at the firm Stefanksy, Holloway & Nichols, Inc., (ECF No. 646 at Pg. ID 601, 603), and Defendants admitted the accuracy of these calculations
by failing to respond to the February 12 Discovery Order. (See supra.)
Plaintiff asks for a total of $63,318.72 in interest on the unpaid contributions
($19,580.41 for the First Audit Period and $43,738.31 for the Second Audit
Period) as of March 1. (ECF No. 64 at Pg. ID 450.) The interest award is also
supported by the Whatley Affidavit. (ECF No. 64-6 at Pg. ID 602-03.)
Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees and costs and “will provide the Court with a
breakdown of work performed, hours, and hourly rates prior to entry of a final
judgment on all claims in this matter.” (ECF No. 64 at Pg. ID 451.)
9

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.647

Page 10 of 11

Regarding liquidated damages, the CBA provides that “[t]he Employer shall
pay liquidated damages equal to .055% of the outstanding delinquent amount for
each day it is late, up to a total of 20% of such delinquency.” (ECF No. 64-9 at Pg.
ID 631.) According to the Whatley Affidavit, as of March 1, liquidated damages
for the First Audit Period totaled $7,291.97 and liquidated damages for the Second
Audit Period totaled $30,886.46. (ECF No. 64-6 at Pg. ID 602, 604.) Because the
total amount of interest on the unpaid contributions ($63,318.72) is greater than
total amount of liquidated damages ($38,178.43), Plaintiff requests an amount
equal to the former per § 1132(g)(2)(C).
CONCLUSION
After examining each component of the judgment award sought by Plaintiff
in light of the evidence submitted and considering that Defendants have not
contested Plaintiff’s evidence or calculations as related to the judgment award, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
64) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for
unpaid contributions in the total amount of $190,892.19, pursuant to
§ 1132(g)(2)(A);
10

Case 4:18-cv-10932-LVP-APP ECF No. 67 filed 04/23/20

PageID.648

Page 11 of 11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for
interest on the unpaid contributions in the total amount of $63,318.72, pursuant to
§ 1132(g)(2)(B);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for an
amount equal to the interest on the unpaid contributions totaling $63,318.72,
pursuant to § 1132(g)(2)(C);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for
attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to § 1132(g)(2)(D);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to the Court,
within seven (7) days of this Opinion and Order, (i) documentation setting forth
and supporting its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and (ii) a proposed final
judgment for the Court’s consideration;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of this Opinion
and Order, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss its MBTFA claim. If Plaintiff elects
not to do so, the Court will consider whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction
before proceeding with litigation of the claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 23, 2020
11