Boards of Trustees of The Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Program v. M&R, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 4/20/2015. (agm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Boards of Trustees of the
:
Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit
Program,
:
Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

Case No. 2:14-cv-0214

:
M&R, LLC,

Magistrate Judge Kemp
Defendant.

:
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs the Boards of
Trustees of the Ohio Laborers’ Fringe Benefit Programs’ motion
for summary judgment.

Defendant M&R, LLC has not responded to

the motion and the time for doing so has long passed.

For the

following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be
granted.
I.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial when
facts material to the Court's ultimate resolution of the case
are in dispute.

It may be rendered only when appropriate

evidentiary materials, as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c),
demonstrate the absence of a material factual dispute and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 368 U.S. 464
(1962).

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating

that no material facts are in dispute, and the evidence
submitted must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
(1970).

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144

Additionally, the Court must draw all reasonable

inferences from that evidence in favor of the nonmoving

party.

United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (1962).

The nonmoving party does have the burden, however, after
completion of sufficient discovery, to submit evidence in
support of any material element of a claim or defense on
which that party would bear the burden of proof at trial,
even if the moving party has not submitted evidence to negate
the existence of that material fact.

See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

Of course, since "a party seeking

summary judgment ... bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,"
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, the responding party is only required
to respond to those issues clearly identified by the moving party
as being subject to the motion.

It is with these standards in

mind that the instant motion must be decided.
II.

Facts

The following facts are taken from the complaint and motion
for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs are fiduciaries of three

employee benefit trusts, the Ohio Laborers’ District Council Ohio Contractors’ Association Insurance Fund, the Laborers’
District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund, the Ohio
Laborers’ Training and Apprenticeship Trust Fund, and one labor
management cooperative trust known as Ohio Laborers’ District
Council - Ohio Contractors’ Association Cooperation and Education
Trust.

These trusts are obligated to collect contributions for

the LIUNA Tri-Funds and three national Labor-Management
Cooperative Trusts as required by the collective bargaining
agreement relevant to this case.
M&R, LLC is an employer within the meaning of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §1002(5).

2

M&R entered

into a collective bargaining agreement with local unions
affiliated with the Laborers’ District Council of Ohio, AFL-CIO.
This agreement, an Ohio Heavy-Municipal-Utility State
Construction Agreement, obligated M&R to make contributions to
the funds pursuant to the respective trust agreements.
M&R failed to make timely contributions to the Funds for the
period May, 2013 through September, 2013.
Zeller ¶12.

See Affidavit of Cyndi

M&R made some late payments for the period May, 2013

through July, 2013, but unpaid contributions totaling
still remain.

Id. at ¶¶13,14.

$10,179.99

Interest and liquidated damages

on the late or unpaid contributions total $3,923.74. Id. at ¶17.
Plaintiffs incurred $8,925.00 in attorneys’ fees in connection
with this action.

See Affidavit of Steven L. Ball.
III.

Analysis

Viewing the above facts in the light most favorable to M&R,
the Court concludes that M&R is a limited liability company doing
business within the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining
agreements and that it was contractually obligated to submit
timely contribution reports and make timely fringe benefit
contributions.

The record also indicates that M&R owes

$14,103.73 for all unpaid or late fringe benefits, liquidated
damages, and interest from May, 2013 through September, 2013.
This figure includes $10,179.99 in past due fringe benefit
contributions, $2,170.97 in liquidated damages, and $1,752.77 in
interest on unpaid contributions.

Further, according to the

record, plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven L. Ball, invested 35 hours in
this matter at the rate of $255.00 per hour, for a total amount
of attorneys’ fees of $8,925.00.
Based on these facts, the Court finds that plaintiffs are
entitled to an award of $14,103.73 for past due fringe benefit
contributions, liquidated damages, and interest on late and
unpaid contributions.

Further, the Court concludes that the

3

attorneys’ fees are reasonable and will award the requested
$8,925.00.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 22) is granted.

The Clerk shall enter judgment

against defendant in the amount of $14,103.73, plus attorneys’
fees in the amount of $8,925.00 and costs.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

4