Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Metallic Lathers Union & Reinforcing Iron Workers Welfare Trust, Annuity v. Atlas Concrete Construction Corp

August 4, 2011

METALLIC LATHERS UNION & REINFORCING IRON WORKERS WELFARE TRUST, ANNUITY,
PENSION, APPRENTICESHIP, VACATION, SCHOLARSHIP, & OTHER FUNDS, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ATLAS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gold, Steven M., U.S.M.J.:

Memorandum & Order

LOCAL #46

Plaintiffs bring this action to collect unpaid benefit contributions pursuant to the Employer Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145. Defendant acknowledges that it was bound by collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") to make ERISA contributions for 2005 through 2010 and admits that it owes $101,468.67 in unpaid contributions. Pl. Ex. 3.*fn1 Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on their right to recover interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.*fn2 Defendant has not filed any opposition to plaintiffs' motion.

DISCUSSION

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Defendant has not filed any opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, even "where the non-moving party chooses the perilous path of failing to submit a response to a summary judgment motion," the court must examine the moving party's submission "to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial." Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs here have met their burden of establishing no genuine issue of material fact remains.

Having reviewed plaintiffs' submissions, I find that defendant's liability for the unpaid contributions and related relief under ERISA is clear. Defendant admits that it is bound to three CBAs for the relevant period and further acknowledges that it owes plaintiffs $101,468.67 in unpaid contributions pursuant to the CBAs. Pl. Ex. 3. The types of relief that may be awarded for a violation of § 1145 are enumerated in § 1132(g)(2), which provides that the court shall award the plan--

(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 . . . 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 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).*fn3 Because defendant concedes that it owes unpaid ERISA contributions, plaintiffs are entitled under ERISA and the terms of the CBAs to recover interest, liquidated damages, and fees and costs.

Plaintiffs seek interest at the rate of 12% per annum, beginning from the end of each audit period. Kaming Aff. ¶¶ 8, 9. *fn4 These are reasonable dates from which interest should accrue. Pursuant to the latter two CBAs, the applicable interest rate is 12% per annum. 2005- 2008 CBA, Art. XII (11), Docket Entry 23-7 at 33; 2008-2014 CBA, Art. XII (11), Docket Entry 23-4 at 30. The 2002-2005 CBA, however, indicates that the applicable interest rate is 9%. 2002-2005 CBA Art. XII (5), Docket Entry 23-7 at 13. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.