1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF OHIO 

LABORERS’ FRINGE BENEFIT 

PROGRAMS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-1105 

 Magistrate Judge King 

WORLD WIDE BUSINESS SERVICES 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

 OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to § 301 of the LaborManagement Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and § 502 of the 

Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1972, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et 

seq., seeking recovery for amounts allegedly due certain employee 

benefit plans. This matter is now before the Court, with the consent 

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 14. Although 

defendant, who is represented by counsel, was expressly granted until 

October 1, 2013 to respond to the motion and was advised of the likely 

consequences of its failure to respond, see Order, Doc. No. 15, there 

has nevertheless been no response to that motion. 

I. Background

 Plaintiffs consist of the Boards of Trustees for The Ohio 

Laborers’ Fringe Benefit Programs (hereinafter “Benefit Programs”), an 

association of three employee benefit trust funds and one labor 

Case: 2:12-cv-01105-NMK-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

management cooperative trust.1

 Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 2. Defendant 

World Wide Business Services Corporation (“World Wide”) is an employer 

with its principal place of business in Groveport, Ohio. Id. at ¶ 3. 

 World Wide executed collective bargaining agreements that require 

it to make contributions to the Benefit Programs. Affidavit of 

Plaintiffs’ Administrative Manager (“Archer Affidavit”), attached to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Doc. No. 14-2, at ¶ 11, 

Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3. Plaintiffs allege that World Wide acted in 

breach of those agreements by failing to make monthly contributions to 

the Benefit Programs. Complaint, ¶ 6. Specifically, plaintiffs 

allege that World Wide failed to pay $13,530.89 for the period 

February 2012 through October 2012 and was late in paying $10,877.03 

during the period February 2012 through May 2012. Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment, p. 3, Exhibit C; Archer Affidavit, ¶¶ 13-14. 

Plaintiffs request recovery of principal amounts due as well as 

liquidated damages and interest pursuant to the collective bargaining 

agreement totaling $3,777.19. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 

p. 3, Exhibit C; Archer Affidavit, ¶ 17. Plaintiffs also request an 

award of attorney’s fee in the amount of $5,750.00. See Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4, Exhibit D; Plaintiff’s Affidavit in 

Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Application for 

 

1

The three employee benefit trust funds are: (1) Ohio Laborers’ District 

Council - Ohio Contractors’ Association Insurance Fund, (2) Laborers’ 

District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio, and (3) Ohio 

Laborers’ Training and Apprenticeship Trust Fund. The labor management 

cooperative trust is Ohio Laborers’ District Council - Ohio Contractors’ 

Association Cooperation and Education Trust (Section 302(c)(9) of the Labor 

Management Relations Act). Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 2. 

Case: 2:12-cv-01105-NMK-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

Attorney Fees, attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as 

Doc. No. 14-1, at ¶ 2. 

II. Discussion 

The standard for summary judgment is well established. This 

standard is found in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

which provides in pertinent part: “The court shall grant summary 

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Pursuant to Rule 56(a), summary 

judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Id. In making this determination, the evidence “must be viewed 

in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party. Adickes v. S.H. 

Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Summary judgment will not lie 

if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, “that is, if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

non-moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986). However, summary judgment is appropriate if the opposing 

party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence 

of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party 

will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The “mere existence of a scintilla of 

evidence in support of the [opposing party’s] position will be 

insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could 

reasonably find for the [opposing party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

Case: 2:12-cv-01105-NMK-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

 The “party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial 

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its 

motion, and identifying those portions” of the record which 

demonstrate “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” 

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The burden then shifts to the 

nonmoving party who “must set forth specific facts showing that there 

is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “Once the moving party has proved that no 

material facts exist, the non-moving party must do more than raise a 

metaphysical or conjectural doubt about issues requiring resolution at 

trial.” Agristor Fin. Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d 233, 236 (6th 

Cir. 1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). 

As noted supra, defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment; the facts stated in the affidavits and other 

papers submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

will therefore be accepted as true by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e). 

 Plaintiffs have presented evidentiary support for all pertinent 

aspects of their motion for summary judgment. Because defendant has 

made no response to the motion, the Court concludes that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled 

to the relief sought in their motion for summary judgment. See 

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

Case: 2:12-cv-01105-NMK-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 14, is meritorious and it is therefore 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs are AWARDED judgment in the amount of $17,308.08, 

plus interest from the date of judgment at the rate of one (1) percent 

per month, plus the costs of this action. Plaintiffs are also AWARDED 

a reasonable attorney’s fee in the amount of $5,750.00. 

 The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT accordingly. 

October 11, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-01105-NMK-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 10/11/13 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>