UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION TRUST

FUND OF LOCAL UNION #58, IBEW;

ELECTRICAL WORKERS’ JOINT BOARD OF

TRUSTEES VACATION FUND;

SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT

BENEFIT FUND OF THE ELECTRICAL

INDUSTRY, DETROIT, MICHIGAN; IBEW

LOCAL NO. 58 ANNUITY FUND; JOINT

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING TRUST FUND;

NECA-IBEW LOCAL LABOR MANAGEMENT

COOPERATION FUND; and NATIONAL

ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-13150

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 11). In their

complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the City of Detroit failed to pay fringe benefits required

under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and that an arbitration award of

$57,560.06 was entered against the City of Detroit on April 17, 2009. Plaintiffs ask this

Court to require the City of Detroit to pay the arbitration award. For the reasons that

follow, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

The following facts have not been disputed. Under a CBA, the City of Detroit is

required to make fringe benefit contributions into the Plaintiff funds. On March 24,
2

2009, Plaintiffs filed a grievance and made a demand for arbitration under the CBA,

alleging that the City of Detroit had failed to make required fringe benefit contributions

amounting to $57,560.06. At an April 16, 2009, hearing, the City Detroit was found

guilty of the charges against it and ordered to immediately pay $57,560.06.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) authorizes the Court to grant summary

judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any

affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” There is no genuine issue of

material fact if there is not a factual dispute that could affect the legal outcome on the

issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining

whether to grant summary judgment, this Court “must construe the evidence and draw

all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Hawkins v. AnheuserBusch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir. 2008). However, “[w]hen a motion for summary

judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on

allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must--by affidavits or as

otherwise provided in this rule--set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2).

In its response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the City of Detroit

notes that it has found no evidence that it received notice of either the arbitration

hearing or the arbitration award and that Plaintiffs have presented no such evidence. 

Plaintiffs claim that the City of Detroit did receive notice of the hearing and award. In

support, Plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of Laura Dayfield, which stated that she had

mailed a notice of the hearing to the City of Detroit, on April 2, 2009 and that she sent a
3

copy of the award to the City of Detroit on April 17, 2009. In addition, Plaintiffs attached

copies of the notices and a signed return receipt indicating that the notice of the hearing

was delivered to the City of Detroit on April 8, 2009. As the City of Detroit has

presented no evidence – beyond the allegation in its response brief – that it did not

receive notice of the hearing and award, it has failed to show that there is a genuine

dispute as to a material fact. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: March 17, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record on this date by ordinary

mail and/or electronic filing.

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

 Case Manager