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

Order Denying Summary Judgment Motion

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EMPLOYEE PAINTERS TRUST HEALTH

& WELFARE FUND, WESTERN

WASHINGTON PAINTERS DEFINED

CONTRIBUTION PENSION TRUST,

WESTERN WASHINGTON

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

TRUST, LABOR MANAGEMENT

COOPERATION TRUST FUND,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS

& ALLIED TRADES PENSION FUND,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES UNION &

INDUSTRY FUND, AND

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS

& ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL

NO. 5,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TIMOTHY H. JACKSON and JODI L.

JACKSON, husband and wife and the marital

community comprise thereof and BRYDON

PAINTING SERVICES, INC., a Washington

corporation,,

Defendants.

CAUSE NO. C06-5145KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court on the Summary Judgment Motion filed on behalf of the

Plaintiffs (Dkt. #15). The defendants filed their Response (Dkt. #17), the plaintiffs filed their Reply (dkt.

Case 3:06-cv-05145-KLS Document 28 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Order Denying Summary Judgment Motion

Page - 2

#22) and the defendants filed a Surreply (Dkt. #25). 

This is an action filed by the plaintiffs alleging entitlement to payment for contribution to the Trust

Funds for union related work performed by employees of Brydon Painting Service. The plaintiffs’ motion

is based on the assumption that contribution rate increases (agreed to by the Union after February 28,

2005) apply to the defendant pursuant to the automatic renewal language found in paragraph 23.1 of the

Western Washington Area Agreement for the Painting Industry. Paragraph 23.1 states that the Agreement

remains in effect until February 28, 2005 and “shall automatically renew itself from year to year thereafter”

unless certain steps are taken. The Court notes that the Agreement itself sets forth specific contribution

rates. The defendant denies that he agreed to any increase in contribution rates after February 28, 2005

and further asserts that any payments he made were “on the basis of our calculations on the contract that

was in force which expired 2005.” (Dkt. #18, page 3, lines 14 and 15). This court further notes that one of

the documents provided by the plaintiff is a letter dated September 27, 2006 to Jodi Jackson from Melissa

Kollman which advises “you have been using old rates in your contribution calculations for quite some

time.” (Part of Exhibit B). 

The auditor noted a dispute as to the regarding the contribution rate in his letter report (not

presented to the court under oath) and reached his conclusion as to the amount due and owing on the

assumption that the new contribution rates applied. 

There are material issues of disputed facts in this case and the motion is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05145-KLS Document 28 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2