Trustees Of The Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. Guardrail, Incorporated
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-cv-1148 (JCH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93691
December 1, 2006, Decided
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 26]
The plaintiffs, Trustees of the Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan (“Teamsters”), have asserted three claims against Guardrail, Incorporated (“Guardrail”), the defendant, relating to Guardrail’s alleged delinquency in contributions to the Plan.
The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 26] pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is unopposed. 1 For the following reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
1 In fact, Guardrail has gone out of business and was liquidated.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a motion for summary judgment the burden is on the moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); White v. ABCO Engineering Corp., 221 F.3d 293, 300 (2d Cir. 2000). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and present such evidence as would allow a jury to find in his favor in order to defeat the motion. Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000).
In assessing the record, the trial court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Graham, 230 F.3d at 38. “This remedy that precludes a trial is properly granted only when no rational finder of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party.” Carlton v. Mystic Transp., Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). [*3] “When reasonable persons, applying the proper legal standards, could differ in their responses to the question” raised on the basis of the evidence presented, the question must be left to the jury. Sologub v. City of New York, 202 F.3d 175, 178 (2d Cir. 2000).
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2
2 In light of the fact that the defendant has not filed opposition papers, the facts are all taken from the plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 26] and Complaint.
Guardrail, which does business in Connecticut as a contractor or subcontractor in the construction industry, was a party to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with Teamsters. Pursuant to that agreement, Guardrail was to contribute to the plaintiffs’ Funds for each hour worked in “covered employment,” i.e., employment covered by the CBA. According to Teamsters, Guardrail failed to make contributions based on 5,002.50 hours worked in covered employment, totaling $21,445.38, from January 2, 1999 to July 31, 2005.
III. DISCUSSION
Teamsters assert they are entitled to the following relief from Guardrail: $21,445.38 in unpaid contributions, $1,734.30 in interest, and $6,914.44 in the costs of collection, for a total of $30,094.12.
ERISA § 515 required Guardrail, as party to the CBA, to make the contributions to the Funds. 3 ERISA § 502(g)(2) further provides that “[i]n any action . . . to enforce section [515] in which a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded, the court shall award” unpaid contributions, plus interest on the same, as well as attorney’s fees and costs and other legal or equitable relief, as appropriate. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).
3 ERISA § 515 provides: “Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29. U.S.C. § 1145.
Teamsters have provided evidence that Guardrail was a party to the CBA that set forth the contribution requirement. See Ex. A. Moreover, they have provided evidence, including an audit of Guardrail’s payroll records and Guardrail’s own remittance reports, that indicates that Guardrail failed to make contributions on behalf of a certain number of employees. See Ex. A & B.
ERISA §502(g)(2) provides for attorney’s fees, costs, and the greater of the interest on the unpaid contributions or liquidated damages as provided in the Plan documents, not to exceed 20% of the unpaid contributions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C). Since the Plan’s Audit Program provides for interest at 2% over the prime rate as of the previous July 1, see Ex. A at Attachment 6, Teamsters are claiming $ 1,734.30 in interest. They are also claiming they incurred costs and fees in relation to this dispute, and thus are entitled to costs totaling $ 6,914.44 pursuant to section 502(g)(2). See Ex. C.
Based on the sound argument and record presented by Teamsters on their claim, the motion for summary judgment is granted absent objection.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 1st day of December, 2006.
/s/ Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge