Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02578/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2578

___________

Carpenters District Council of Kansas *

City Pension Fund, a Trust Fund; Terry *

L. Davis, Trustee of the Carpenters *

District Council of Kansas City Pension *

Fund, Kansas City and Vicinity Welfare *

Fund, Kansas City and Vicinity *

Apprenticeship and Training Fund; *

Jeffrey Chaikin, Trustee of the *

Carpenters District Council of Kansas *

City Pension Fund and Kansas City and *

Vicinity Welfare Fund; Carpenters *

District Council of Kansas City and *

Vicinity Welfare Fund, a Trust Fund; *

Carpenters District Council of Kansas * Appeal from the United States

City and Vicinity Apprenticeship and * District Court for the Western

Training Fund, a Trust Fund; Joseph E. * District of Missouri.

Pink, Trustee of the Carpenters District *

Council of Kansas City and Vicinity * [UNPUBLISHED]

Apprenticeship and Training Fund, *

*

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

Graceland Industries, Inc., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2005

Filed: August 11, 2005

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2005 Entry ID: 1939228
*

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carpenters District Council of Kansas City Pension Fund and others (plaintiffs)

sued Graceland Industries (Graceland), seeking an accounting and unpaid fringe

benefit contributions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. See 29

U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1145. The district court*

 entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs after

Graceland failed to oppose plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and failed to

respond to the court’s show-cause order. The district court then denied Graceland’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, and Graceland appeals. 

Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s refusal to set aside its order granting summary judgment. See Ivy v.

Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). The purpose of

Rule 60(b) relief is not to afford the parties an opportunity to reargue the merits of

their case. Graceland’s inability to oppose summary judgment, and counsel’s

deficiencies, are not grounds for Rule 60(b) relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Inman

v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2005 Entry ID: 1939228