# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · July 22, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11413868

## Case

- **Full name:** Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. LJServices, L.L.C., et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** July 22, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11413868

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Boards of Trustees of
the Ohio Laborers Benefits,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:22-cv-2631
V. Judge Michael H. Watson
LJServices, L.L.C., et al., Magistrate Judge Jolson
also known as
LJ Services LLC
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits (“Plaintiffs”), sued
LJServices, L.L.C. (“LJ Services”) and LJ Traffic Control, LLC (“LJ Traffic
Control,” collectively “Defendants”) for violations of certain collective bargaining
agreements (“CBAs”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment, ECF No. 69, but
the motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal as to only LJ Services.
I. FACTS
Plaintiffs have presented evidence to support the following facts. Plaintiffs
are the fiduciaries of four employee benefit plans: (1) the Ohio Laborers’ District
Council—Ohio Contractors’ Association Insurance Fund; (2) the Laborers’ District
Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio; (3) the Ohio Laborers’ Annuity
Fund; and (4) the Ohio Laborers’ Training and Apprenticeship Trust Fund.

Gaston Dec. J 3, ECF No. 69-1. They are also the fiduciaries of one labor-
management cooperative trust: Ohio Laborers’ District Council—Ohio
Contractors’ Association Cooperation and Education Trust (collectively, “Plans”).
Id. The Plans are multiemployer plans, and they collect contributions to the
LIUNA Tri-Funds, three national labor-management cooperative trusts. /d. J] 4—
5.
Defendants are limited liability companies that both provide traffic control
and flagging services in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. /d. J 6. Defendants signed
various CBAs with Laborers’ International Union of North America and its
affiliated district councils and local unions, including the Local 265/534 Utility
Agreement, which appears to cover work performed from August 6, 2018,
through August 5, 2022 (through July 31, 2022, for wage deductions and through
August 5, 2022, for fringe benefits contributions), and the National Distribution
Agreement, which appears to cover work performed from June 1, 2022, through
May 31, 2027. /d. J 8, 10; L265-534 Utility Agmt., ECF No. 69-2 (LJ Services);
Utility Agmt. Signature Page, ECF No. 69-11 (LJ Traffic); Nat'l Distrib. Agmt., ECF
No. 69-6; Acknowledgment Nat’! Distrib. Agmt., ECF No. 69-10 (LJ Services);
Acknowledgement Nat’! Distrib. Agmt. (LJ Traffic), ECF No. 69-12. LJ Services
signed other CBAs with Laborers’ International Union of North America and its
affiliated district councils and local unions. Gaston Dec. ¥ 8, ECF No. 69-1; HHW
Agmt. (2019-2022), ECF No. 69-3; HHW Agmt. Signature Page (2019-2022),

Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 2 of 7

ECF No. 69-8 (LJ Services); Nat'l Pipeline Agmt., ECF No. 69-5: Acceptance of
Nat'l Pipeline Agmt., ECF No. 69-9 (LJ Services).
Signatories to those CBAs were bound to the CBAs and Declarations of
Trust establishing the Plans and the LIUNA Tri-Funds. /d. WM 9, 11. The CBAs,
the Declarations of Trust, and the Plans (“Governing Documents”) required
Defendants to file monthly contribution reports, permit audits of their financial
records, and make hourly contributions to the Plans and the LIUNA Tri-Funds on
behalf of persons defined in the CBAs. /d. 912. The Governing Documents also
permit Plaintiffs to conduct an audit of Defendants’ financial records, collect
delinquent contributions, and assess and collect liquidated damages when
signatory employers fail to make the required contributions and deductions. /d.
q 13.
Defendants employed laborers that performed work covered by the CBAs,
and the CBAs required Defendants to pay contributions at specified rates on
behalf of those employees for each hour worked in covered employment. /d.
{| 14. But Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are delinquent on contributions. /d.
{| 16. After filing this lawsuit, Megan Wilson (“Wilson”) performed an audit for
Plaintiffs. /d. 16. According to Wilson, the audit revealed that “Defendants”
failed to timely submit contributions for some months between May 2020 and
December 2023. Wilson Dec. J 3, ECF No. 69-13. In fact, according to Wilson,
the audit revealed that “Defendants” owed $77,064.54 in principle contributions,

Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 3 of 7

$69,838.55 in liquidated damages, $87,659.87 and in interest, for a total of
$234,562.96. Id. J 4.
ll. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard governing summary judgment is set forth in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(a): “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.”
The Court must grant summary judgment 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.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When reviewing a summary
judgment motion, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, who must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine
dispute of material fact for trial, and the Court must refrain from making credibility
determinations or weighing the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted); Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 255 (1986). The Court disregards “all
evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury would not be required to
believe.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000)
(citation omitted). 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

Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 4 of 7

a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).
The Court is not “obligated to wade through and search the entire record
for some specific facts that might support the nonmoving party’s claim.”
InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court
may rely on the parties to call attention to the specific portions of the record that
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. LaSalle
Bank N.A., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1022 (S.D. Ohio 2009).
lll. ANALYSIS
LJ Services did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but
LJ Traffic opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. Resp., ECF No. 72. LJ Traffic argues that
liability and damages hinge on Wilson's declaration, but Wilson never audited LJ
Traffic and therefore could not have offered reliable testimony concerning LJ
Traffic’s delinquencies. Hayslip Dec. J] 3-5, ECF No. 73. Plaintiffs did not reply
in support of their motion.
Based on the evidence, summary judgment is not warranted against either
Defendant. First, summary judgment is not warranted against LJ Traffic, because
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of the purported
delinquencies (let alone the amount thereof) are attributable to LJ Traffic. See
Hayslip Dec., ECF No. 73.
Moreover, although LJ Services did not oppose summary judgment,
Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information from which the Court can
Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 5 of 7

conclude that there is no genuine issue of fact as to LJ Services’ liability. For
example, Plaintiffs have not provided a signature page for the 2022—2025 Ohio
Highway-Heavy-Municipal-Utility State Construction Agreement. In addition, the
Wilson declaration fails to identify from which CBA each delinquency arose. It
therefore also fails to demonstrate which Defendant caused each delinquency.
Therefore, the Court cannot determine from the evidence provided that each
delinquency arose from a CBA to which LJ Services was a party for the covered
timeframe and cannot grant summary judgment against LJ Services.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to renewal against only LU Services within TWENTY-ONE DAYS.
Any such renewed motion should be accompanied by evidence sufficient for the
Court to determine that each delinquent payment is attributable to LU Services,
under a CBA for which there is proof of LU Service’s participation, and that the
CBA covers the date of the delinquency.
Moreover, LJ Traffic has presented evidence that it is a separate company
from LJ Services and that the two companies do not employ the same workers or
work the same job sites. Hayslip Decl. J 10, ECF No. 73. As such, LJ Traffic
argues that it is not jointly and severally liable for LU Services’ delinquencies.
Resp. 1-2, ECF No. 72. Plaintiffs offered no contrary evidence with their motion
for summary judgment. Nonetheless, LJ Traffic did not move for summary
judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims against it, and the dispositive motion deadline has
passed. Plaintiffs and LJ Traffic are therefore ORDERED to confer and to
Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 6 of 7

propose, within TEN DAYS, next steps regarding LJ Traffic’s involvement in this
litigation. If Plaintiffs wish to renew their motion for summary judgment against
LJ Traffic also, it shall including a brief argument within the proposal as to why
the Court should permit the same.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
69, is DENIED. The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 69 as a pending motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED. . N □□□
ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:22-cv-2631 Page 7 of 7

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11413868. Public record. Not legal advice.