IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS UNION )

NO. 142 PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF )

THE TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL )

NO. 142 TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIP )

TRUST FUND, and TRUSTEES OF THE )

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 142 )

ANNUITY FUND, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:13-cv-73-APR

)

v. )

)

UNDERGROUND INCORPORATED, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 13] filed by the

plaintiffs on October 31, 2013. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Background

The defendant, Underground, Inc., entered into a collective bargaining agreement with

the Union for the period of June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2013. The agreement later was

extended through May 31, 2014. The CBA requries Underground to make periodic contributions

on behalf of its employees to the plaintiffs’ Pension Fund, Training and Apprentice Fund, and

Annuity Fund in the amounts established by the CBA. The undisputed evidence shows that

Underground failed to pay the required contributions into the funds from March 2012 through

August 2012. Underground signed an agreement for payment of arrearage in October 2012,

agreeing to pay delinquent contributions to all three funds, plus interest and attorney fees. 

1
Underground made the initial payment under the agreement, but subsequent payments have been

inconsistent. Underground also failed to pay current contributions after the agreement to pay the

arrearage was entered and has not made a payment pursuant to the agreement since May 2013. 

As a signatory to the CBA, Underground also was bound by the Restated Agreement and

Declaration of Trust. The trust agreement provides that if Underground is delinquent in

contributions, the trustees may take any steps necessary to collect the funds, and Underground

must pay interest on all money due and all expenses of collection incurred by the trustees,

including costs and legal fees. The trust also requires that Underground pay 10% per annum

interest on any unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and costs. 

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2013. Underground

did not file a response and the time to do so has passed. 

Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper only if it

is demonstrated that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106

S. Ct. 2548 , 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 964 (7th Cir. 2012);

Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009). The burden is upon the moving party

to establish that no material facts are in genuine dispute, and any doubt as to the existence of a

genuine issue must be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company,

398 U.S. 144, 160, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1610, 26 L. Ed.2d 142, 155 (1970); Stephens, 569 F.3d at

786. A fact is material if it is outcome determinative under applicable law. There must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty

2
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986); Stephens,

569 F.3d at 786; Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). However, summary

judgment may be entered against the non-moving party if it is unable to “establish the existence

of an essential element to [the party’s] case, and on which [that party] will bear the burden of

proof at trial . . .”. Kidwell, 679 F.3d at 964 (citing Benuzzi v. Bd. of Educ., 647 F.3d 652, 662

(7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d

265 (1986)).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine whether the

evidence presented by the party opposed to the summary judgment is such that a reasonable jury

might find in favor of that party after a trial. 

The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining

whether there is the need for a trial--whether, in other words, there

are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by

a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of

either party.

[T]his standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which is that the trial judge

must direct a verdict if, under the governing law, there can be but one

reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505,

2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986).

See also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109,

147 L. Ed.2d 105, 120-22 (2000) (setting out the standard for a directed verdict); Celotex Corp., 477

U.S. at 322-23, 106 S. Ct. at 2553; Stephens, 569 F.3d at 786; Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539

F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir. 2008)(stating that a genuine issue is one on which a reasonable fact finder

could find for the nonmoving party); Springer v. Durflinger, 518 F.3d 479, 483 (7th Cir.

3
2008)(stating that a genuine issue exists and summary judgment is inappropriate if there is sufficient

evidence for a jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party). 

Title 29 U.S.C. § 1145 states that “[e]very employer who is obligated to make contributions

to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained

agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with

the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” The plan may enforce agreements against

the employer. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck

Service, Inc., 870 F.2d 1148, 1149 (7th Cir. 1989). 

The CBA agreement required Underground to make contributions to the funds for all

employees who performed work described in the CBA. The evidence is undisputed that

Underground failed to make the required contributions in accordance with ERISA and the CBA. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney fees amount

to $28,643.50. Underground does not dispute that it owes this amount. Because Underground has

failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact remains pending with regard to either its liability

or the amount due, the court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion and ENTERS judgment in favor of

the plaintiffs in the amount of $28,643.50. 

ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2014

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich

United States Magistrate Judge

4