Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02937/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02937-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF SHEET METAL WORKERS HEALTH

CARE PLAN OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLAUDE E. ATKINS ENTERPRISES, INC., a

California corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-2937 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS'

UNOPPOSED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Board of Sheet Metal Workers Health Care Plan of

Northern California, Sheet Metal Workers Pension Trust of Northern

California, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Vacation, Holiday Savings

Plan and Anthony Asher, Trustee, move for summary adjudication of

the claims in their complaint against Defendant Claude E. Atkins

Enterprises, Inc. Defendant has filed a statement of nonopposition to the motion. The matter was taken under submission on

the papers. Having considered the moving papers, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence of the following facts. On

November 19, 2003, Defendant entered into a collective bargaining
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

agreement (CBA) with Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 which

required that Defendant pay health, welfare, pension and other

fringe benefits contributions on behalf of covered employees to

Plaintiffs, which are plans organized under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act. The CBA also provides that, in the event

Defendant is delinquent in paying owed contributions, Defendant is

liable for (1) the unpaid contributions, (2) liquidated damages at

rates defined by the agreement, (3) interest at rates defined by

the agreement, and (4) attorneys' fees at rates defined by the

agreement.

From May 1, 2004 through August 6, 2004, Defendant failed to

pay Plaintiffs $72,077.60 in owed contributions. On July 20, 2004,

Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking unpaid contributions as well

as liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The

complaint also states as follows: "The Trust Funds do not at this

time seek to audit the books and records of defendant. . . . The

Trust Funds seek to obtain a judgment for any outstanding

delinquent contributions based on defendant's reports and to

reserve the right to audit defendant for this or any other

unaudited period." On June 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their motion

for summary judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

Where the moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue

at trial, it must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that

no genuine issue of material fact remains, make a prima facie

showing in support of its position on that issue. See UA Local 343

v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). 

That is, the moving party must present evidence that, if

uncontroverted at trial, would entitle it to prevail on that issue. 

See id.; see also Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d

1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991). Once it has done so, the non-moving

party must set forth specific facts controverting the moving

party's prima facie case. See UA Local 343, 48 F.3d at 1471. The
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

non-moving party's "burden of contradicting [the moving party's]

evidence is not negligible." Id. This standard does not change

merely because resolution of the relevant issue is "highly fact

specific." See id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have submitted substantial and undisputed evidence

that Defendant, from May 1, 2004 through August 6, 2004, failed to

pay Plaintiffs owed plan contributions totaling $72,077.60. Thus,

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted. Under the

terms of the CBA, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for the amount

of unpaid contributions plus $15,389.44 in liquidated damages,

$10,791.29 in interest as of July 15, 2005, and $1,665 in

attorneys' fees and costs, totaling $99,923.33.

Once judgment in this case is entered, Plaintiffs will be

barred by the doctrine of res judicata from recovering additional

delinquent payments for the relevant time period that they may

discover they are owed through an audit. See Int'l Union of

Operating Engineers v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Thus, Plaintiffs shall notify the Court within two weeks of the

date of this order whether they wish judgment to enter, or to

conduct an audit and seek further contributions if warranted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED, and judgment will enter for Plaintiffs

in the amount of $99,923.33, plus any additional interest that

comes due. Plaintiffs shall notify the Court within two weeks of

the date of this order if they intend to audit Defendant and seek
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

additional contributions in this case. If Plaintiffs indicate that

they do not intend to seek additional contributions in this case,

or if they fail to notify the Court within two weeks, the Court

will enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/31/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge