Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. World Wide Business Services Corporation
Filing
16
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs are AWARDED judgment in the amount of $17,308.08, plus interest from the date of judgment at the rate of one (1) percent per month, plus the costs of this action. Plaintiffs are also AWARDED a reasonable attorney's fee in the amount of $5,750.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/11/13. (jr1)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF OHIO
LABORERS’ FRINGE BENEFIT
PROGRAMS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Civil Action 2:12-cv-1105
Magistrate Judge King
WORLD WIDE BUSINESS SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to § 301 of the LaborManagement Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and § 502 of the
Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1972, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et
seq., seeking recovery for amounts allegedly due certain employee
benefit plans.
This matter is now before the Court, with the consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 14.
Although
defendant, who is represented by counsel, was expressly granted until
October 1, 2013 to respond to the motion and was advised of the likely
consequences of its failure to respond, see Order, Doc. No. 15, there
has nevertheless been no response to that motion.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs consist of the Boards of Trustees for The Ohio
Laborers’ Fringe Benefit Programs (hereinafter “Benefit Programs”), an
association of three employee benefit trust funds and one labor
1
management cooperative trust.1
Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 2.
Defendant
World Wide Business Services Corporation (“World Wide”) is an employer
with its principal place of business in Groveport, Ohio.
Id. at ¶ 3.
World Wide executed collective bargaining agreements that require
it to make contributions to the Benefit Programs.
Affidavit of
Plaintiffs’ Administrative Manager (“Archer Affidavit”), attached to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Doc. No. 14-2, at ¶ 11,
Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3.
Plaintiffs allege that World Wide acted in
breach of those agreements by failing to make monthly contributions to
the Benefit Programs.
Complaint, ¶ 6.
Specifically, plaintiffs
allege that World Wide failed to pay $13,530.89 for the period
February 2012 through October 2012 and was late in paying $10,877.03
during the period February 2012 through May 2012.
Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Summary Judgment, p. 3, Exhibit C; Archer Affidavit, ¶¶ 13-14.
Plaintiffs request recovery of principal amounts due as well as
liquidated damages and interest pursuant to the collective bargaining
agreement totaling $3,777.19. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
p. 3, Exhibit C; Archer Affidavit, ¶ 17.
Plaintiffs also request an
award of attorney’s fee in the amount of $5,750.00.
See Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4, Exhibit D; Plaintiff’s Affidavit in
Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Application for
1
The three employee benefit trust funds are: (1) Ohio Laborers’ District
Council - Ohio Contractors’ Association Insurance Fund, (2) Laborers’
District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio, and (3) Ohio
Laborers’ Training and Apprenticeship Trust Fund. The labor management
cooperative trust is Ohio Laborers’ District Council - Ohio Contractors’
Association Cooperation and Education Trust (Section 302(c)(9) of the Labor
Management Relations Act). Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 2.
2
Attorney Fees, attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as
Doc. No. 14-1, at ¶ 2.
II.
Discussion
The standard for summary judgment is well established.
This
standard is found in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which provides in pertinent part: “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).
Pursuant to Rule 56(a), summary
judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”
Id.
In making this determination, the evidence “must be viewed
in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party.
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
Adickes v. S.H.
Summary judgment will not lie
if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, “that is, if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party.”
(1986).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
However, summary judgment is appropriate if the opposing
party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence
of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
The “mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the [opposing party’s] position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could
reasonably find for the [opposing party].”
3
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
The “party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its
motion, and identifying those portions” of the record which
demonstrate “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
The burden then shifts to the
nonmoving party who “must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (quoting
“Once the moving party has proved that no
material facts exist, the non-moving party must do more than raise a
metaphysical or conjectural doubt about issues requiring resolution at
trial.”
Agristor Fin. Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d 233, 236 (6th
Cir. 1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)).
As noted supra, defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Summary Judgment; the facts stated in the affidavits and other
papers submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
will therefore be accepted as true by the Court.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e).
Plaintiffs have presented evidentiary support for all pertinent
aspects of their motion for summary judgment.
Because defendant has
made no response to the motion, the Court concludes that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled
to the relief sought in their motion for summary judgment.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
4
See
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 14, is meritorious and it is therefore
GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are AWARDED judgment in the amount of $17,308.08,
plus interest from the date of judgment at the rate of one (1) percent
per month, plus the costs of this action.
Plaintiffs are also AWARDED
a reasonable attorney’s fee in the amount of $5,750.00.
The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT accordingly.
October 11, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
