National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Mirarchi Brothers, Inc., No. 13-1867 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1867 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, by its trustees; SALVATORE J. CHILIA, Trustee; D. R. BORDEN, JR., Trustee, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. MIRARCHI BROTHERS, INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:11-cv-02621-DKC) Submitted: January 31, 2014 Before KING and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 12, 2014 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew I. Sack, DAVIS BUCCO & ARDIZZI, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania; Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Bush Hawkins, POTTS-DUPRE, DIFEDE & HAWKINS, CHTD., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mirarchi Brothers, Incorporated, appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment for National Electrical Benefit Fund ( NEBF ) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and awarding NEBF unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and audit fees related to an audit of Mirarchi s contribution records. On appeal, Mirarchi contends that summary judgment is improper because there is a genuine dispute over whether it owes NEBF unpaid contributions. Finding no error, we affirm. We summary review judgment, de novo viewing the the district facts court s and the grant of reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cir. 2008). Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Summary judgment is proper 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. Civ. P. 56(a). Fed. R. A court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 We conclude that, in this case, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
