holding that an unopposed motion for summary 25 judgment may be granted only after the court determines 26 there are no material issues of fact
How later courts described this case
- holding that an unopposed motion for summary 25 judgment may be granted only after the court determines 26 there are no material issues of fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:301
'O'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CV 21-08301-RSWL-KES x
12 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CALIFORNIA IRONWORKERS
ORDER re: MOTION FOR
13 FIELD PENSION TRUST, ET
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20]
AL.,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
16 v.
17 STREAMLINE INTEGRATION,
18
Defendant.
19
20 Plaintiffs, trustees of the California Ironworkers
21 Field Pension Trust (“Pension Trust”), California
22 Ironworkers Field Welfare Plan (“Welfare Plan”),
23 California Field Iron Workers Vacation Trust Fund
24 (“Vacation Trust”), California Field Ironworkers
25 Apprenticeship Training and Journeyman Retraining Fund
26 (“Training Fund”), California Ironworkers Field Defined
27 Contribution Pension Trust Fund (“DC Fund”), California
28 Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust (“Admin.
1
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:302
1 Trust”), California Field Ironworkers Labor Management
2 Cooperative Trust Fund (“LMC Trust”), and the
3 Ironworkers Workers’ Compensation Trust (“Workers’ Comp.
4 Trust”), (collectively “the Trust Funds”), bring this
5 Action against Defendant Streamline Integration
6 (“Defendant”) for Breach of Written Collective
7 Bargaining Agreement and Related Trust Agreements,
8 Violation of Section 515 of the Employee Retirement
9 Income Security Act (“ERISA”), and for an injunction
10 requiring Defendant submit to an audit of Defendant’s
11 books and records.
12 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion
13 for Summary Judgment. Defendant failed to file an
14 opposition or objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
15 Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to
16 this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
17 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and ORDERS Defendant
18 to submit to an audit of Defendant’s books and records
19 relevant to its obligation to contribute to the Trust
20 Funds.
21 I. BACKGROUND
22 A. Factual & Procedural Background
23 The Trust Funds are multi-employer trust funds
24 created and maintained pursuant to ERISA and
25 Section 302(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act of
26 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c). Plfs.’ Statement of
27 Uncontroverted Facts (“Plfs.’ SUF”) ¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 20-
28 4. These Trust Funds are funded by contributions paid
2
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:303
1 by individual employers. Id. ¶ 4. The Ironworkers
2 Employees’ Benefit Corporation (the “IEBC”) is a non-
3 profit that administers the Trust Funds. Decl. of Mark
4 Ellis ¶ 2, ECF No. 20-2.
5 On or about June 7, 2020, Defendant executed the
6 Iron Workers Independent Agreement (“Independent
7 Agreement”) and the Contributing Employers Agreement
8 with the District Council of Iron Workers of the State
9 of California and Vicinity (the “Union”). Id. ¶¶ 6-7.
10 These two agreements provide that Defendant shall comply
11 with the provisions and rules set forth in the
12 collective bargaining agreement governing employers
13 obligated to contribute to the Trust Funds. Id. ¶¶ 8-
14 10. Therefore, under these agreements, Defendant agreed
15 and is obligated to submit contributions to the Trust
16 Funds. Id. ¶¶ 5-9.
17 Specifically, Defendant must submit monthly reports
18 and pay to the Trust Funds certain monetary
19 contributions for each hour paid for or worked by
20 employees performing work covered by the collective
21 bargaining agreement. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Contributions are
22 due on the fifteenth day of each month following the
23 month in which Defendant’s employees were paid and/or
24 worked, and such contributions are considered delinquent
25 if not received by the twenty-fifth day of the month.
26 Id. ¶¶ 11-12. The agreements governing the Trust Funds
27 make clear that the prompt payment of contributions is
28 essential, and that liquidated damages resulting from
3
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:304
1 failure to timely pay contributions are presumed to be
2 ten percent of the delinquent contributions if paid
3 within ten days of becoming delinquent, or twenty
4 percent if paid after the ten days, but no less than
5 $50.00 under any circumstances.1 Id. ¶ 15. These
6 agreements provide that unpaid contributions shall bear
7 interest at the rate of ten percent per annum.2 Id.
8 ¶ 16.
9 The agreements also authorize the Trust Funds to
10 examine and audit Defendant’s books and records to
11 determine whether the employer is making full and prompt
12 payment of the contributions to the Trust Funds. Id.
13 ¶ 17. If an audit reveals that Defendant has failed to
14 correctly report and pay contributions for reason other
15 than clerical error or omission, Defendant shall be
16 liable for an hourly charge for the audit, the unpaid
17 contributions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s
18 fees, and any other costs of collection. Id. ¶ 18.
19 Defendant failed to submit contributions to the
20 Trust Funds from July 2020 through November 2020. Id.
21 ¶ 19. As a result, Defendant currently owes the Trust
22 Funds $36,149.06, broken down as follows: $25,327.77 in
23 delinquent contributions, $5,688.50 in liquidated
24 damages, $5,027.79 in interest, and $105.00 in audit
25
1 The Admin Trust deviates from this formula, instead
26 assessing liquidated damages at ten percent what was due without
increasing those damages to twenty percent at any time. Id.
27
2 Unpaid contributions to the Admin Trust bear interest at
28 seven percent per annum. Id.
4
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:305
1 costs. Id. ¶¶ 21-24, 27.
2 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint [1] on October 20,
3 2021, and Defendant answered [11] on January 14, 2022.
4 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion [20] on October 13,
5 2022. Defendant has not opposed or objected to the
6 instant Motion.
7 II. DISCUSSION
8 A. Legal Standard
9 Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving
10 party “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
11 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as
12 a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is
13 “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit,
14 and the dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such
15 that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for
16 the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S
17 242, 248 (1986).
18 The moving party bears the initial burden of
19 proving the absence of a genuine dispute of material
20 fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
21 (1986). Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of
22 proof at trial, the moving party need only show “an
23 absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s
24 case.” Id. at 325. If the moving party meets its
25 burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to
26 present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine
27 issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S at 250. The
28 nonmoving party “must show more than the mere existence
5
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 6 of 14 Page ID #:306
1 of a scintilla of evidence . . . or some ‘metaphysical
2 doubt’ as to the material facts at issue.” In re Oracle
3 Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).
4 The evidence, and all reasonable inferences based
5 on underlying facts, must be construed in the light most
6 favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550
7 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). In reviewing the record, the
8 court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but only
9 to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists.
10 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. “A district court’s ruling
11 on a motion for summary judgment may only be based on
12 admissible evidence.” In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig.,
13 627 F.3d at 385. “While the evidence presented at the
14 summary judgment stage does not yet need to be in a form
15 that would be admissible at trial, the proponent must
16 set out facts that it will be able to prove through
17 admissible evidence.” Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629
18 F.3d 966, 973 (9th Cir. 2010).
19 B. Analysis
20 Defendant does not oppose the present motion. In
21 the absence of an opposition, the Court nevertheless
22 decides a motion for summary judgment on its merits.
23 See Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494-95 (9th Cir.
24 1994) (holding that an unopposed motion for summary
25 judgment may be granted only after the court determines
26 there are no material issues of fact). Plaintiffs,
27 therefore, must still meet their burden of showing the
28 absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
6
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 7 of 14 Page ID #:307
1 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached contracts
2 obligating it to contribute to the Trust Funds, that
3 Defendant’s failure to contribute violated ERISA, and
4 the Defendant must submit to a further audit. See
5 generally Compl., ECF No. 1. The Court’s analysis
6 centers on Plaintiffs’ ERISA claim and request for an
7 injunction.3
8 1. ERISA
9 Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to timely
10 submit contributions to the Trust Funds in violation of
11 ERISA. See Plfs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for
12 Summ. J. (“Mem.”), ECF No. 20-1. Section 515 of ERISA
13 states that “[e]very employer who is obligated to make
14 contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of
15 the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained
16 agreement shall . . . make such contributions in
17 accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or
18 such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145.
19 a. Defendant is Obligated to Make
20 Contributions to the Trust Funds
21 On June 7, 2020, Defendant entered into an
22 Independent Agreement and a Contributing Employers
23
3 In 1980, Congress amended ERISA to provide trustees of
24 multiemployer benefit plans with an effective federal remedy to
collect delinquent contributions. Laborers Health & Welfare Tr.
25 Fund For N. California v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co.,
484 U.S. 539, 541 (1988). Therefore, section 514(a) of ERISA
26 preempts state law claims that “relate to” employee benefits
plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Accordingly, “ERISA preempts common
27
law theories of . . .breach of contract.” Ellenburg v. Brockway,
28 Inc., 763 F.2d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 1985).
7
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:308
1 Agreement with the Union. See Decl. of Mark Ellis, Exs.
2 A-B (“Independent Agreement” and “Contributing Employers
3 Agreement,” respectively), ECF No. 20-2. By entering
4 the Independent Agreement, Defendant agreed to comply
5 with the conditions and provisions of the collective
6 bargaining agreement and to accept, assume, and be bound
7 by any trust agreements, plans, or rules pertaining to
8 the collective bargaining agreement. See Independent
9 Agreement. The Independent Agreement also established
10 that Defendant “agree[d] to pay all monetary
11 contributions for each hour paid for or worked by
12 employees performing work covered by the [collective
13 bargaining agreement] to . . .the Trust Funds specified
14 in [the collective bargaining agreement] . . . .” Id.
15 Therefore, Plaintiffs have adequately shown that
16 the Trust Funds are a multiemployer plan that Defendant
17 is obligated to contribute to under the Independent
18 Agreement, Contributing Employer Agreement, and related
19 agreements. See generally Mem.; Independent Agreement;
20 Contributing Employer Agreement; Collective Bargaining
21 Agreement.
22 b. Defendant Failed to Make Contributions to
23 the Trust Funds from June 2020 Through
24 November 2020
25 Here, Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of
26 showing there is no genuine issue of material fact
27 regarding whether Defendant failed to contribute to the
28 Trust Funds in accordance with the agreements. The
8
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:309
1 agreements clearly required Defendant to submit monthly
2 reports and contributions to the Trust Funds, Defendant
3 did not do so, and Defendant has admitted as much. See
4 Independent Agreement; Collective Bargaining Agreement;
5 Decl. of Jason J. Kennedy ¶¶ 2-4, ECF No. 20-3; Decl. of
6 Jason J. Kennedy, Ex. A, ECF No. 20-3.
7 Mr. Mark Ellis, the Employer Accounts/Collection
8 Supervisor for the Trust Funds, oversees the collection
9 of contributions to the Trust Funds. Decl. of Mark
10 Ellis ¶ 7. He also supervises the assessment of
11 liquidated damages and interest owed to the Trust Funds
12 by employers bound by the collective bargaining
13 agreement and related agreements. Id. Mr. Ellis
14 submitted a declaration stating that he has in his
15 possession, custody, and control the books and records
16 of the Trust Funds, including: (1) reports and
17 contributions that the Trust Funds received from
18 Defendant; (2) correspondence between Defendant and the
19 Trust Funds; (3) records of contributions Defendant owes
20 to the Trust Funds; and (4) calculations of amounts owed
21 by Defendant to the Trust Funds. Id. ¶ 8.
22 Mr. Ellis provided a copy of a spreadsheet
23 “prepared by the IEBC staff reflecting the total
24 contributions, interest, and liquidated damages owed by
25 Defendant, less credit for payment received from a claim
26 on a bond, for July 2020 through November 2020.” Id.
27 ¶ 36. These amounts were “derived from the records of
28 the Trust Funds and calculation of the IEBC staff” under
9
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:310
1 Mr. Ellis’s direction and supervision. Id. This
2 spreadsheet reveals that Defendant failed to pay
3 contributions owed to the Trust Funds from July 2020
4 through November 2020. See Decl. of Mark Ellis, Ex. M
5 (“Spreadsheet”), ECF No. 20-2.
6 Plaintiffs also supplied their First Set of
7 Requests for Admissions propounded upon Defendant. See
8 Decl. of Jason J. Kennedy, Ex. A. These Requests for
9 Admission ask Defendant to admit that (1) Defendant
10 entered into the Independent Agreement and Contributing
11 Employers Agreement; (2) Defendant had an obligation to
12 submit monthly reports and pay contributions to the
13 Trust Funds; (3) Defendant employed ironworker employees
14 from June 2020 through November 2020; (4) Defendant had
15 an obligation to pay benefit contributions from June
16 2020 through November 2020; (5) Defendant failed to
17 timely submit full contribution payments; (6) On January
18 7, 2020, Defendant’s President/Chief Executive Officer
19 executed a declaration stating the entire amount of the
20 audit claimed in this Action was accurate; (7) On
21 January 7, 2020, Defendant’s President/Chief Executive
22 Officer executed a declaration stating that the entire
23 amount of the audit claimed in this Action was owed by
24 Defendant; and (8) Defendant has an obligation to pay
25 the Trust Funds liquidated damages and interest for
26 contributions not timely paid. See id.
27 Defendant did not respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests
28 for Admissions. Decl. of Jason J. Kennedy ¶ 3. Federal
10
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:311
1 Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(1) provides that “[a]
2 matter is admitted unless, within [thirty] days of being
3 served, the party to whom the request is directed serves
4 on the requesting party a written answer or objection
5 addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its
6 attorney.” Consequently, Defendant’s failure to respond
7 amounts to admissions of the information set forth in
8 Plaintiffs’ requests. Thus, Defendant has admitted to
9 failing to contribute to the Trust Funds from June 2020
10 through July 2020 in violation of the Independent
11 Agreement, Contributing Employer Agreement, and related
12 agreements.
13 Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden
14 of showing that there is no genuine issue of material
15 fact that Defendant has failed to comply with its
16 obligations under the Independent Agreement,
17 Contributing Employer Agreement, and related contracts.
18 Having concluded that Defendant failed to pay
19 contributions to the Trust Funds from June 2020 through
20 November 2020, the Court finds that Defendant violated
21 ERISA.
22 c. Damages Defendant Owes the Trust Funds
23 Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), “[i]n any
24 action under this subchapter by a fiduciary for or on
25 behalf of a plan to enforce section 1145 . . . in which
26 a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded,” a court
27 shall award: (A) the unpaid contributions, (B) interest
28 on the unpaid contributions, (C) the greater of the
11
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:312
1 interest or liquidated damages provided for under the
2 plan in an amount not in excess of twenty percent,
3 (D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action,
4 to be paid by the defendant, and (E) such other legal or
5 equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
6 The agreements provide that a delinquent employer
7 will be liable for unpaid contributions, interest, and
8 liquidated damages. SUF ¶¶ 15-16. An employer will
9 also be liable for audit costs, reasonable attorney’s
10 fees, and any other costs of collection if an audit
11 reveals the employer has failed to correctly report and
12 pay contributions. Id. ¶ 18. Liquidated damages
13 resulting from failure to timely pay contributions are
14 presumed to be ten percent of the delinquent
15 contributions if paid within ten days of becoming
16 delinquent, or twenty percent if paid after the ten
17 days.4 Id. ¶ 15. Unpaid contributions bear interest at
18 the rate of ten percent per annum.5 Id. ¶ 16.
19 Once the Court issues judgment in the Trust Funds’
20 favor, award of these damages is mandatory, so long as:
21 (1) the employer is delinquent at the time of the
22 action; (2) the Court enters judgment against the
23 employer; and (3) the plan provides for the award. See,
24 e.g., Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d
25
4 The Admin Trust assesses liquidated damages at ten percent
26 what was due and does not increase liquidated damages to twenty
percent. Id.
27
5 Unpaid contributions to the Admin Trust bear interest at
28 seven percent per annum. Id.
12
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:313
1 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996); Kemmis v. McGoldrick, 706 F.2d
2 993, 997 (9th Cir. 1983). These conditions have been
3 met here, so the Trust Funds are entitled to judgment in
4 the amounts discussed below.
5 The Court awards the Trust Funds: (1) $25,327.77 in
6 unpaid contributions; (2) $5,027.79 in interest;
7 (3) $5,688.50 in liquidated damages; and (4) $105.00 in
8 audit costs. See SUF ¶¶ 21-24, 27; Spreadsheet.
9 Plaintiffs’ fees for filing, service of process, and
10 discovery are reasonable and recoverable, thus the
11 Plaintiffs may file a Notice of Application to the Clerk
12 to Tax Costs within thirty days of the Court entering
13 judgment. C.D. Cal. L.R. 54-3.1, 54-3.2, 54-3.10.
14 2. Audit
15 Plaintiffs request the Court issue an injunction
16 requiring Defendant to submit to an audit of the months
17 of “December 2020 to present to ascertain whether the
18 correct amounts of contributions have been reported and
19 paid and whether Defendant owes further contributions to
20 Plaintiffs.” Plfs.’ Notice of Mot and Mot. for Summ. J.
21 ¶ 4, ECF No. 20. The Supreme Court has held that where
22 a collective bargaining agreement gives the trustees of
23 an employee benefit plan the right to audit an
24 employer’s books and records, it will be enforced.
25 Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent.
26 Transp., Inc., 472 U.S. 559, 569 (1985).
27 Here, Plaintiffs have identified the agreements
28 which require a signatory employer to submit to an audit
13
Case 2:21-cv-08301-RSWL-KES Document 24 Filed 12/19/22 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:314
1 of its books and records. See Independent Agreement;
2 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Therefore, Plaintiffs
3 have presented sufficient evidence to show they are
4 entitled to injunctive relief in the form of a court
5 order compelling Defendant to submit to an audit of its
6 records.
7 Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to submit
8 to a full audit for the period of December 2020 through
9 the present by auditors selected by the Trust Funds at
10 the premises of Defendant during business hours, at a
11 reasonable time or times, and to allow the auditors to
12 examine such books and records of Defendant relevant to
13 the enforcement of the Independent Agreement,
14 Contributing Employer’s Agreement, collective bargaining
15 agreement, and related agreements.
16 III. CONCLUSION
17 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS
18 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the amount of
19 $36,149.06. The Court ORDERS Defendant to submit to an
20 audit of Defendant’s books and records relevant to its
21 obligation to contribute to the Trust Funds.
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25 DATED: December 19, 2022 _ _ _ _ _ _ _/S_/ _R_O_N_A_L_D_ S_._W_. _LE_W_________
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
26
Senior U.S. District Judge
27
28
14