case for argument is the central state's pension fund against rail terminal services mr ability of plan trustees promptly collect unpaid employer contributions we are asking you to reverse the decision below in which the district court dismissed the funds claimants on the faulty premise that those claims sought statutory withdraw liability and that it would draw liability arbitration should proceed st before any of the contribution claims could be resolved now that decision was incorrect for a number of reasons but there are a couple key points that we want to touch on today st a ruling on the merits of the funds complaint and the relief requested did not require the resolution of any withdrawal liability questions how not without knowing the date of withdrawal the fund has one idea about the date of withdrawal the employer has a different idea how does one figure out what contributions are rolling without having  because the district court is only being asked an antecedent question here it's being asked does the employer o'conner abuse ins or specific period of time based on a contract or a set of contract here those contracts where the because to determine the withdrawal date that that's that's a different analysis of withdrawal date i'm aware it's a different analysis but i wish you to address my question with a withdrawal that is looking at an entire control group of comp and the trustees would be determining whether that entire control group sees participation in the plan and from there the trustees are assessing withdraw liability based on a set of statutory or your let me put it different your contention in this case is that the employer owes contributions for a period after the arbitrator determined that the employer withdrew from the is that correct that's not correct because that you're not seeking one cent for anything on end after what was it march seventeen that let me just read it or it said you weren't seeking would again this will only be the case when the entire control group of companies contains one employer which in this case the control group as we know it does contain only one can one employer which is real terminals but the the district court is being asked the contractual question not a statutory question i understand that's the question you would like to ask question once more how can the district court answer it without knowing the date on which the employer withdrew the district court is only in looking at the contracts and seeing if there is a contribution obligation or you want to divisoria opinion on what the contribution would be if the employer hadn't withdrawn no your honor no your honor i know the employer is arguing that the trustees and made a determination that the employer had not with true at the time we filed the complaint but that will be the case in every contribution in every contributions case the trustees assume that addressing my question and it also means you're not addressing the reason you've watched in the district because my question is the reason for saying over and over we are seeking something doesn't answer the question how can a judge determine what your in total it is without st having fix the withdrawal date because the district court can determine the whether we're entitled to any relief by looking solely at the contract no it can't it needs to know the withdrawal date you haven't explained how the withdrawal date is legally irrelevant to your claim for contributions after the date on which the employer says and now the arbitrator has found that it withdrew well that the district court would have to look at whether there was a termination notice that the defendant the employer has raised a defense that the contract was terminated and so where the analysis goes from there is was the contract actually terminated and we look at whether there was a notice of term and again that does not require a statutory question about a withdrawal diction to decide not a question of jurisdiction and it it does not strip the federal court of the the the obligation to decide contribution claims the congress intended that these were going to be simple collection action and there is ample case law in this certain elsewhere about section five hundred and fifteen dollars and under that case law much of it builds on the reasoning of this court's  decision in gerber truck there the court said benefit plans are like the holder d in due course nerver truck just not have anything to do with determining a withdrawal date i me ask you this question in a different way what is the problem for the fund if as the district court said you wait until the arbitration is done and then you challenge in one suit the arbitrator's decision you make arguments for contributions on the assumption that the arbitrator is right and a separate set of arguments on the assumption that the arbitrator is wrong the only other alternative is for the district court to stay the litigation until that happens there's no way the district court's going to decide it before that what's the difference to the funds between a stay and filing a new lawsuit contesting the award and asking for it the amount to do with the reason that matters for the fun this because there there is harm that comes from  you know count you're not getting it the two alternatives are a stay and a new suit they involve exactly the same delay that again that's only if the district court does not side t question get the judge isn't going to if we remained the judge is then going to issue a stay which is completely within her authority pending arbitration and you can't even appeal from an  we do not believe us they would be appropriate here because of the no is don't honestly look i wish you to address my questions rather than addressing the questions you hoped i would ask if those are the only two alternatives and believe me they are what difference is it to the fund which of them with a safe any time there's a stake that that delays the collection process for that's very different from the situation where the district court is deciding those contributions because under arrest under five a two g to the plans however if they receive a judgment they can recover the contributions interest liquidated damages attorney's fees and audit costs the problem is if those the questions are decided in arbitration st not only can we not recover those from remedies in also on the hook for half of the harvard costs so that there's a financial impact there but again the delay does slow down the collection i think you're just fantasizing the arbitration has already happened that's why i gave slate everything is to know however when a district court is reviewing an arbitration award while it's giving a gene over a view to legal determination it may need to give deference to factual findings of the arbitrator and in this case we can forsee there's going to be a dispute with the employer about whether there actually were any factual findings made by the arbitrator because she excuse me the arbitrator ruled on partial summary judgment however if it is the case that the district court gives deference to factual findings that's a problem and here's why the events would not be admissible in a section five thousand case involving employer contributions and so we feel that the district court's decision runs the risk of removing that special status bestowed on benefit plans in maintained that the withdrawal date was three million three hundred and twelve thousand and eighteen the liability difference for that one period for that one year period that is used it was it another eight hundred thousand dollars in contributions plus another seventeen million dollars in withdraw liability and change the withdraw liability from an enormous amount of twenty five million dollars to an astronomical amount of forty two million dollars the district court was correct in dismissing this case in favor of mandatory arbitration under the multi employer pension plan amendments act of one thousand nine hundred and eighty now i'd like to point out to the court that not only did it dismiss in favor of arbitration but as the court is aware the arbitration actually took place and was decided on january st of this year council let me tell you what month principal problem with your argument your argument makes sense with respect to the pension fund why does it make sense with respect to the welfare of the welfare funds or outside the scope of the multiple employer pension plan etc amendments say why didn't the district court have an obligation to decide the claims made by the welfare fund well what the district court decided with the welfare fund was that reports were simply never issued it wasn't until july of two thousand and eighteen that rail terminal actually got any kind of report from the trustees about what contributions were in dispute or were in dispute and with regard to the health and welfare plan there was only thirty five thousand dollars it is it issue in the air and only eleven thousand dollars of that was  in dispute and rail terminal simply decided that it would pay those disputed amounts with interest so there is no longer any claim at all with regard to this that's a with interest and we have agreed to pay all disputed claims under either the pension or the welfare plan with interest and therefore there is no longer respect states that we would pay all the pension contributions and all the welfare contributions with interest so there is no longer claim there except for the fact that central states maintains that it should be entitled to get interest cost in attorney's fees on that amount the way it ended in arbitration was the arbitrator didn't award cost or attorney's fees to any premature well well let's put it this way they are a trader is fixed all the variables they didn't actually do the calculation but the arbitrator has picked a good date of withdrawal at three  you are just setting yourself up for a case situation in which the district court in force is the award and we they kate it on the grounds that the whole thing was premature you don't want that nobody wants that well well your honor there is it your it's your choice but i'm telling you one very bad thing that can happen well you are our motion to enforce basically ask the district court to order central states d to file to issue a new notice and demand for the withdrawal liability so i mean it really is that simple now because the central states is so underfunded that th that it's simple math doesn't mean that it isn't a task for the arbitrator but we're not going to argue this now i'm just telling you you may be standing here in a year arguing it later and you won't want that that's true so i mean i think your honor it's a point that this was a determination for the date of complete withdrawal that has now  been established by the arbitrator we think the district court's opinion was correct we asked you to affirm the district court's dismissal of this action based on seven circuit l w under seven circuit you've already decided the issue under robbins versus admiral merchants again under robbins versus lady baltimore again under central states versus bonior that it is not settled count three is still right controversy we have instructed the employer that they may pay this this is not the time to do it with time is short we will direct the parties to file supplemental memos within one week addressing the question whether the welfare funds claim has been settled ok now whatever else you are doing on the merits that's up your alley ok well i was just going to point out that the reason it's not settled it is because they're still in a controversy over the audit costs the attorneys fees and look at it on the point about the enforcement proceeding before judge coleman in the district court we agree that starts to the clock for the arbitrator to issue and we're currently in that thirty day period right now so the enforcement proceeding that the employer jump the gun on that and we do not have an awar really going to come within ten or twelve days is that would you disagree it could the arbitrator has not indicated i mean you said it is a thirty day time period in we're in the middle of it that's or yes that's correct so it could come in the next several days if you know thirty days is thirty days they get it isn't yes that that's correct the employer mentioned a few some sort of cases at the very end admiral merchants and bellmawr again those were cases involving the collection withdraw liability payments and there was an actual question about a withdrawal date that the employer was for questing that the district court decide the district court in this case is only being being asked to decide whether a contract had terminated it was only making a determination as to the contract the two thousand and thirteen it was also being asked to interpret the participation agreement and to have the actuarial stability of plans in mind and it wanted to make sure that plans to collect contributions and that that income income could come in the door quickly because it's the most important source of funding for plans in welfare the status of the welfare funds claims within seven days and when they receive the case will be taken under advisement the next case for argument this morning is