Trustees-Northern Nevada Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Mach 4 Construction, LLC et al

Filing 128

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 115 renewed motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/29/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
10

TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN NEVADA
OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

MACH 4 CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

14

Defendants.

3:08-CV-0578-LRH-RAM
3:09-CV-0565-LRH-RAM
ORDER

15
Before the court is plaintiffs’ renewed motion for summary judgment. Doc. #115.1

16
17

Defendants filed an opposition (Doc. #121) to which plaintiffs replied (Doc. #122).

18

I.

19

Facts and Background
On October 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed the present action against defendants for breach of

20

contract arising from alleged unpaid contributions. Doc. #1. Defendants filed counterclaims against

21

plaintiffs which were eventually withdrawn and re-filed in a separate action, 3:09-cv-0565. In that

22

separate action, the court entered an order finding that defendants failed to properly terminate the

23

underlying contracts. See Doc. #33, case no. 3:09-cv-0565. Thereafter, and in response to the

24

court’s order, plaintiffs filed the present motion for summary judgment. Doc. #115.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

3

interrogatories, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and

4

other materials in the record show that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the

5

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In assessing a motion for

6

summary judgment, the evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn

7

therefrom, must be read in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita

8

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora

9

Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).

10

The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion,

11

along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.

12

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the

13

moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier

14

of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259

15

(6th Cir. 1986); see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

16

To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to

17

facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v.

18

Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might

19

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

20

242, 248 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary

21

judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute

22

regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

23

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of a

24

scintilla of evidence in support of the party’s position is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute;

25

there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the party. See id. at 252.

26

2

1
2

III.

Discussion
In their motion, plaintiffs contend that the issue of defendants’ liability has been established

3

and that the court should enter summary judgment on the issue of damages arising from

4

defendants’ breach. See Doc. #115. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the issue of damages is

5

settled based on an audit report conducted during discovery. Id.

6

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

7

there are disputed issues of material fact relating to the audit report which preclude summary

8

judgment in this matter. First, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the audit report

9

contains non-covered work hours for which plaintiffs would not be entitled to receive

10

contributions. Second, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the audit itself was

11

properly conducted and whether the audit report was subsequently properly calculated using the

12

appropriate contribution amounts and covered work hours. Therefore, summary judgment on the

13

issue of damages is not appropriate and the court shall deny plaintiffs’ renewed motion accordingly.

14
15
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ renewed motion for summary judgment
(Doc. #115) is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 29th day of November, 2011.

19
20

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

3