Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Steinbruner Heating & Cooling, No. 1:2009cv01254 - Document 22 (E.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Motion for Summary Judgment. (see Order for details) Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 5/25/10. (tfitz, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division A. f.-. :: . BOARD OF TRUSTEES, METAL WORKERS' PENSIONS SHEET ) NATIONAL ) FUND, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) STEINBRUNER HEATING & Civil Action No. 01:09-CV-1254 ) COOLING, ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Metal Workers' Plaintiff, the Board of Trustees National Pension Fund awarding withdrawal ("Fund"), seeks a judgment liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Heating & Cooling (1982), ("Steinbruner") interest on the withdrawal and reasonable attorneys' ("MPPAA"), 29 owed by Defendant Steinbruner as a result of its complete withdrawal from the Fund on January 9, seeks for the Sheet 2008. liability, fees and costs, Plaintiff also liquidated damages pursuant to MPPAA. Plaintiff administers the Fund at 601 North Fairfax Street in Alexandria, Virginia. laws of Wisconsin, Oregon Street, Defendant is incorporated under the and its principal place of business Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The maintained pursuant to Section 302 (c) Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c), of Fund is is comprised of "fiduciaries" 3(21)(A) with respect of ERISA, the meaning of of the Labor Management and it is a multiemployer to the Fund, as defined in Section and are collectively the of "plan sponsor" ERISA. and Section 3(5) affecting commerce, (12) of Until from the Fund on or about January 9, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 152(2) of ERISA. individual trustees who are Section 4001(a)(10)(A) its withdrawal 600 created and pension plan within the meaning of Section 3(37) Plaintiff is of ERISA, within the date 2008, 29 U.S.C. § and was engaged in an industry within the meanings of Sections 3(11) and ERISA. Until the date of its withdrawal from the Fund, employed employees represented for the purposes of bargaining by Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 18 commerce. collective International Association ("Local Union No. representing employees Defendant 18"), a labor organization in an industry affecting interstate At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant was bound by a collective bargaining agreement with Local Union No. 18, under which it was on behalf of required to make contributions to the Fund its employees who were covered by the Agreement. The Agreement obligated Defendant to abide by the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust Agreement") establishing the Fund, and payments to the and to submit monthly reports Fund. The Fund determined that on or about January 9, Defendant effected a "complete withdrawal" defined in Section 4203 result of ("Trust of ERISA. The this complete withdrawal, 2008, from the Fund as Fund determined that, Defendant as a incurred a withdrawal liability to the Fund in the amount of $151,137.62, determined under Section 4201(b) 2009, of ERISA. On or about June as 19, Defendant received a Notice and Demand for payment of withdrawal Sections liability issued by the Fund in accordance with 4202(2) for payment $151,137.62, and 4219(b)(1) of ERISA. This Notice and Demand informed Defendant that its withdrawal payable liability was in 25 quarterly payments of $7,080.78, final quarterly payment of $5,608.90. and a The Notice and Demand stated the first quarterly payment was due on or before July 19, 2009. Defendant received a letter from the Fund dated August 2009, notifying Defendant that it was delinquent 18, in making its first quarterly withdrawal liability payment and that it had 60 days from receipt of the letter to cure the delinquency or it would be in default within the meaning of Defendant has not made any withdrawal ERISA § 4219(c) (5) (A) . liability payments to the Fund. Defendant did not request a plan sponsor review of the withdrawal liability assessment within the time period specified in Section 4219(b)(2)(A) arbitration of of ERISA, the withdrawal and did not initiate liability assessment within the time period specified in Section 4221(a)(1) precluded from doing Under Rule and is now so. 56(c) of the Federal Rules of the Court must grant summary judgment demonstrates of ERISA, if Civil Procedure, the moving party "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts view the facts party. Anderson v. (1986). in a light most Liberty Lobby, favorable to the nonmoving Inc.. 477 U.S. 242, 255 Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing party then has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute as to any material fact does exist. Matsushita Elec. 574, 87 Indus. (1986). Co.. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 586- The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. at 248. "Rule 56 (e) Anderson. 477 U.S. requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [her] own affidavits, 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, or by the and admissions on file,' and designate genuine issue 317, 324 'specific for trial.'" facts showing that Celotex Corp. v. there Catrett. is a 477 U.S. (1986). Any dispute between an employer and a multiemployer pension plan, such as the Fund, concerning the determination of withdrawal liability under ERISA must be resolved through arbitration. Inc.. 946 See 29 U.S.C. F.2d 1059, request arbitration, 1063 1401{a)(l); (4th Cir. 1991). the withdrawal assessed by the Fund, 1401(b)(1). §§ Moreover, became the due, is 1399(c)(5) By failing to timely and owing. 29 U.S.C. § liability because in default within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. and 29 C.F.R. as entitled to payment of the entire outstanding amount of withdrawal Defendant Centra liability of Defendant, fixed, Fund is McDonald v. 4219.31(b), § for failing to timely cure its delinquency. Defendant argues, among other things, that summary judgment should not be granted because of a previous Wisconsin state court ruling, which held Defendant liable for delinquent contribution payments to the pension fund for the period of December 1, to December 31, ERISA contains 2007. Defendant's and the out of Title lacks merit because separate causes of action for the collection of delinquent monthly contributions, ERISA, argument 2005 collection of IV of ERISA. which arise under Title I of withdrawal Withdrawal liability, which arise liability is a distinct cause of action under ERISA that only arises after an employer withdraws Fund, from a pension plan. Defendant's withdrawal and subsequent obligation to pay withdrawal not occur until after January 9, 2008, from the liability, nearly a year after period in which Defendant was held liable did the for delinquent pension fund contributions. Defendant was signatory and bound by the bargaining agreement with Local Union No. collective 18, under which it was required to make contributions to the Fund on behalf of employees who were covered by the Agreement. obligated Defendant to abide by the That Agreement terms and conditions of Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing the submit monthly reports and payments to the Fund. determined that on or about January 9, "complete withdrawal" from the of ERISA, 13 83. of this 29 U.S.C. § complete withdrawal, Fund, The 2008, The as defined in Section 4203 Defendant as a result incurred withdrawal 29 U.S.C. Under ERISA Section 502(g)(2), Fund Defendant effected a Fund determined that of ERISA, the Fund and to liability to the Fund in the amount of $151,137.62, under Section 4219(b)(l) its § as determined 1381(b). a delinquent employer is liable not only for delinquent contributions but liquidated damages, in the event interest, and attorneys' that a multiemployer contributions. fund is 29 U.S.C. § fees and costs required to 1132(g)(2). file suit to recover the An award of interest, liquidated damages under ERISA. fees and costs see McDonald at Id; and attorneys' 1065 (w[W]hen a fund is successful in a suit attorneys' fees to recover delinquent at the rate of compounded daily). 8.5% per annum As of May 21, or 20 percent of 1132(g)(2). to the the attorneys' collection of Defendant. the accumulated interest to the delinquent withdrawal $30,227.52. fees the $10,775.81. is liable in the amount equal liability. for Additionally, and costs that it has delinquent withdrawal stated above, should be GRANTED. liability 29 U.S.C. liquidated damages the Fund is entitled incurred in pursuing liability owed by Plaintiff's Motion for Summary An appropriate Order shall issue. /s/ Claude M. Hilton United States District Judge Alexandria, May The Id. For the reasons Judgment 2010, liability amounts Defendant the liability interest on the delinquent withdrawal Thus, in the amount of Under (0.0233% per day, is entitled to liquidated damages to the greater of § contributions interest on unpaid withdrawal on the unpaid withdrawal Fund also mandatory are mandatory not discretionary."). Fund's Trust Agreement, accrues is Virginia 2£~, 2010
]]>
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.
