Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 150 Pension Fund et al v. Muns Welding and Mechanical Inc., No. 1:2015cv00038 - Document 44 (S.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 27 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying as moot 40 Motion to Quash. The Court orders the Defendant to pay Plain tiff Pension Fund $59,491.40 before November 22, 2015, and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court Orders Plaintiffs to file a memorandum detailing their attorneys' fees and costs before November 16, 2015, and directs both parties to file, before November 16, 2015, any contentions to the aforementioned amounts for interest and liquidated damages. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/30/2015. (thb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 150 Pension Fund et al v. Muns Welding and Mechanical Inc. Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION PLUMBERS AND LOCAL 150 STEAMFITTERS * PENSION FUND and * JEFFREY RICE and * RORY LAFONTAINE, as * Representative Trustees of the Pension Fund, * * Plaintiffs, * CV 115-038 v. MUNS WELDING AND MECHANICAL, * INC. , * Defendant ORDER Presently judgment on before the the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for pleadings (Doc. 15), Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 35), and Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiffs' notice of intent to file reply brief (Doc. 40) . For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for summary judgment, the cross motion for summary judgment, and the motion to quash. I, This Plumbers Fund") case and arises out Steamfitters BACKGROUND of a Local dispute 150 Pension and Jeffrey Rice and Rory LaFontaine, trustees of the Pension Fund, between Plaintiffs Fund ("Pension as representative and Defendant Muns Welding and Dockets.Justia.com Mechanical, Inc. collective ("Muns Welding"). bargaining Steamfitters Contractors Local agreement Union Association, 150 Inc., its employees. (Id.) provided Yet, Defendant Defendant owed on with Doc. the (Id.) To stated that, by continuing to 1, demand Pension liability. 1.) 2013, December a an and Mechanical obligation However, to 2 014, the demand, direct Pension indicating $2,416,913 this when the Defendant was no longer letter Fund justify the Plumbers Augusta had with to the Pension Fund on behalf agreement expired on September 30, bound. the Defendant (Compl., accordance between and make fringe benefit contributions of In in the that withdrawal Pension union members Fund to Fund perform work in the purview of the expired agreement without making the same contributions, Pension Fund. After Defendant had effectively withdrawn from the (Id.) denying the contentions within the Pension Fund's letter, Defendant filed suit in this Court on February 2, 2015, seeking declaratory Fund's allegations. Trs. and injunctive relief (See Muns Welding & Mech., of Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. l:15-cv-017 (S.D. from Ga. Apr. 2, 2015).) the Pension Inc. v. Bd. of 50 Pension Fund, No. As to Defendant's case, this Court granted the Pension Fund's motion to dismiss because the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") mandates that withdrawal liability 2 disputes be handled in arbitration. Before the Court's order was issued, Plaintiffs filed the instant action on March 6, however, 2015, interim payments on the alleged withdrawal liability. Doc. 1.) Since pleadings, have that time, a motion two summary judgment motions, been filed. The Court will now for seeking (Compl., judgment on the and a motion to quash address each of these in turn. II, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), xx[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. Civ. P. 12(c). appropriate However, "where Cir. City 2001) . outcome of of A the entitled to West fact suit is must be a based Inc., judgment on on the the the pleadings facts judgment as 250 "material" under on material Palm Beach, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, other words, judgment there are no the moving party is Cannon v. a if xxit governing 477 U.S. the pleadings undisputed facts might law." 1300 1299, 247 alone, (11th affect if the law." (1986). appearing and of [substantive] 242, only in dispute a matter F.3d is R. "In sustained, in all the pleadings." Stanton v. Larsh, 239 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir. 1957). The legal standards governing Rule 12(c) motions are same as those governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. the Roma Outdoor Creations, Inc. v. City of Cumming, Ga., 558 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1284 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ("A motion for pleadings is subject to the same standard as motion to dismiss.") Therefore, Plaintiffs' that is 'plausible on its face.'" JP Morgan Chase Bank, Mar. 2012) 20, 1187, 1196 1:10-cv-1666, 2012 WL (quoting Wooten v. (11th Cir. 2010)). to state complaint sufficient No. matter on a 949698, claim at Court to draw the reasonable inference liable for the misconduct alleged." 662, 678 (2009). that In applying this standard, on (1) all unpaid withdrawal Defendant, damages, (2) (4) attorneys' Doc. 1.) interest liquidated fees, Plaintiffs those payments, damages, incurred and in bringing (5) v. Ga. 626 F.3d its face," Iqbal, is 556 U.S. factual allegations Id. filed suit seeking liability payments on N.A. defendant are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Turning to the instant case, relief that allows the the Ashcroft v. "must (N.D. Inc., "plausible the complaint must have enough "factual content for *2-3 Quicken Loans, To be the is a Rule 12(b)(6) contain Sampson, factual judgment due (3) and owing by ERISA statutory expenses, this including action. (Compl., With respect to Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, outstanding the Court will determine whether Defendant withdrawal liability additional awards are warranted. and, if so, has any whether any A. Under 29 Unpaid Withdrawal Liability U.S.C. § 1381, if an employer withdraws multiemployer plan in a complete or partial withdrawal, employer incurs occurred, the employer's amount], "withdrawal plan sponsor withdrawal and collect § 1382. More employer's liability." shall complete the or schedule 1399(b)(1). notify [that amount] for soon as plan of sponsor to the employer of of the [that the plan sponsor § demand payment if done within employer may ask for 29 U.S.C. After the plan sponsor's review, U.S.C. "shall the schedule consider additional information. 29 However, Id. the notice, review amount payments." the plan sponsor receiving the has (i) the amount of the liability and in accordance with the schedule." ninety days withdrawal practicable after an withdrawal, liability Thereafter, the a then the from the employer." 29 U.S.C. xx[a]s partial shall notify the employer of (ii) "determine liability, specifically, If from a inaccuracies or the to § 1399(b)(2)(A). should the employer still be unsatisfied with the liability amount or the sheer existence of liability, U.S.C. § it can 1401(a)(1). initiate arbitration Following proceedings. arbitration, a dissatisfied party may file suit in a federal district court. 1401(b)(2). "[e]ven if Yet, the as indicated employer in challenges the parties' the 29 29 U.S.C. § earlier trustees' suit, withdrawal liability determination ... it must still pay according to the 5 trustees' schedule under the statute's collection procedure." Trust Fund v. Ferbar xpay now, dispute later' Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Corp. of Cali., Inc., 522 U.S. 192, 197 (1997) . Regarding the instant motion, Plaintiffs none of the following are in dispute: is a multiemployer Pension Fund's Lafontaine (2) "plan withdrew plan; sponsor[s]"; from the prevail if (1) Plaintiff Pension Fund Defendant multiemployer are Defendant plan; will is (3) (4) an employer Plaintiffs Plaintiffs plan; (5) within Rice contend Plaintiffs and that notified Defendant of the amount of withdrawal liability and the schedule for its payment; and, (7) (6) Plaintiffs demanded payment from Defendant; Defendant has failed to make one or more withdrawal liability payments. In paragraph two of their complaint, Plaintiff meaning admits Pension of to 29 the Fund U.S.C. is a multiemployer § 1301(a)(3). allegations in Plaintiffs allege that this In its plan within answer, paragraph. the Defendant Consequently, Plaintiff Pension Fund is a multiemployer plan. In paragraph twelve of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 1002(5), which includes "any person acting directly employer ... in relation to an employee benefit plan." answer, as § an In its Defendant admits to the allegations of this paragraph. 6 Additionally, in paragraph sixteen of its complaint, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant had an obligation to make fringe benefit contributions admits that to it Consequently, the Pension Fund." "had and continues based on these In its to have" answer, Defendant such an obligation. admissions, Defendant is an employer within Plaintiff Pension Fund's multiemployer plan. In paragraphs Plaintiffs allege representative four that Jeffrey trustees discretionary authority management the seven, of Plaintiffs through of six Rice the and and control that Rice their Rory Pension Pension Fund and allege of its Lafontaine Fund with who respect assets. and complaint, are exercise to the In paragraph Lafontaine are also fiduciaries of the Pension Fund within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21). In its answer, of these paragraphs. "group of maintain sponsors. Thus, because a "plan sponsor" includes a representatives the Defendant admits to the allegations plan," of the Plaintiffs Rice parties and who establish Lafontaine are or plan 29 U.S.C. § 1002(16)(B). In paragraph twenty-five, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant completely withdrew from the Pension Fund within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(2). In paragraph twenty-seven, allege that they sent a letter (Ex. 3, Doc. 1-2) Plaintiffs by certified mail to Defendant notifying it of its withdrawal liability, the schedule for its payment, and 7 Plaintiffs' demand for such payment. In Plaintiff's In 9, quarterly that 2015, payment has January 30, admits that Plaintiffs their demanded counsel was due acknowledged such payment Defendant Defendant thirty-three, that Defendant any answer, it not is made or the on allege January receiving ever has 30, the been quarterly on Defendant from that, the 2015. demand due. payment on Plaintiffs are Defendant. that these excerpts entitled More to from the interim specifically, parties' liability denied was due on given the demand 1-2), be, Defendant was, Pension January 30, 2015, and Fund until continues $59,491.40 $2,416,913 to each the first of these quarterly payments. and (Ex. 3, Doc. obligated quarter, from letter to pay beginning in withdrawal Yet, according to the pleadings, pleadings, payments complaint motion for but its Consequently, payment schedule attached to Plaintiffs' paid. In 2 015. Based Plaintiff received letter. paragraph February answer, its liability is Defendant has not made As a result, judgment on the pleadings is granted, Plaintiffs' and Defendant must pay Plaintiff Pension Fund $59,491.40.x 1 As of today's date, Defendant should have already made three quarterly payments. (Ex. 3, Doc. 1-2.) However, because the pleadings indicate that Defendant has missed only one of these installments, the Court cannot order Defendant to pay an amount greater than $59,491.40. 8 on B. Interest, In an liability, Statutory Damages, and Attorneys' action "any to failure compel of an the employer employer to to make Fees and Costs pay withdrawal any withdrawal liability payment within the time prescribed2 shall be treated in the same manner as a delinquent contribution of 29 U.S.C. § 1145]." 29 U.S.C. § 1451(b). [within the meaning Therefore, because a multiemployer plan is entitled to interest, statutory damages, and when reasonable attorneys' fees and costs successfully bringing an action for delinquent contributions under 29 U.S.C. § 1145, when a multiemployer plan bringing payments.3 a is also successful action 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). has found Defendant liable entitled to these awards for withdrawal liability Accordingly, since the Court for the unpaid withdrawal liability payment, Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the outstanding payment, costs. statutory damages, However, and reasonable attorneys' fees and Plaintiffs are not entitled to the additional liquidated damages and expenses requested in their complaint and referenced within the parties' trust agreement. See Carpenters 2 Defendant contends that the phrase "within the time prescribed" refers to a time period following an arbitrator's final decision. However, because the parties have yet to enter arbitration, much less receive a final decision in arbitration, this argument is unpersuasive. Instead, the phrase "within the time prescribed," as found in section 1451(b), refers to the deadlines set forth by Plaintiffs' withdrawal liability schedule. 3 Here, the Court uses the term "statutory damages" to refer to the award under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 that equals "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 twenty percent (or such higher percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined by the court subparagraph (A)." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C). 9 Sc Joiners (8th Cir. Welfare Fund v. Gittleman 1988)(holding that of the section 1132(g)(2) the Corp., "detail remedy" 857 F.2d 476, 479 and comprehensiveness indicates that other remedies should not be available). To determine Defendant, the the Court interest must and know statutory the damages interest rate liquidated damages provided for within the parties' 29 U.S.C. (Ex. 1, § 1132(g). Doc. 1-2) contributions is While under it appears twelve that percent their Articles the interest per annum and afford figures. both To supporting do parties so, the each party documentation with opportunity should the file to a and of by the plan. See Agreement rate on unpaid the liquidated damages amount to ten percent of unpaid contributions, will owed the Court dispute these memorandum Court. and Additionally, Plaintiffs must provide sufficient information for the Court to determine the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that Defendant must pay. Ill, With this Order, Other Motions the Court has granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings and will instruct the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. As a result, the Court denies Defendant's as moot the following motions: motion for summary judgment (Doc. 27), Plaintiffs' cross motion for summary 10 judgment (Doc. 35), and Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiffs' notice of intent to file reply brief (Doc. IV, For for the reasons judgment Defendant's cross on motion motion for CONCLUSION above, the the Court GRANTS pleadings for (Doc. summary summary 40). 15) judgment judgment Plaintiffs' and DENIES (Doc. (Doc. motion AS MOOT 27), Plaintiffs' and Defendant's 35), motion to quash Plaintiffs' notice of intent to file reply brief (Doc. the 40) . Plaintiff DIRECTS Accordingly, the detailing 2015, ORDERS Defendant Pension Fund $59#491.40 before November Clerk to the Court Additionally, 2015, Court their and ENTER ORDERS attorneys' DIRECTS both JUDGMENT in Plaintiffs fees parties and to costs file, favor to of file pay 2015, 22, to and Plaintiffs. a memorandum before November 16, before November 16, any contentions to the aforementioned amounts for interest and liquidated damages. ORDER October, ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this <sxc^ day of 2015. HONORASfcET J. RAZtfDAL HALL united/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ^teU^PHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
