1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE S.E.I.U. LOCAL 

NO. 4 PENSION FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COURTYARD HEALTHCARE 

CENTER, LLC, an Illinois Limited 

Liability Company, and COURTYARD 

REALTY AT BERWYN, an Illinois 

Limited Liability Company, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 C 2749

Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Courtyard Healthcare Center, LLC (“Courtyard Healthcare”) and Courtyard Realty at 

Berwyn (“Courtyard Realty”) are Illinois limited liability companies registered at 2824 West 

Coyle, Chicago IL 60645. (Dkt. 65 ¶¶ 4, 6). Barak Bayer and David Cheplowitz manage both 

entities. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 7). During the relevant period, Courtyard Realty was also the owner and lessor 

of the physical property where Courtyard Healthcare, a nursing home, conducted business. (Id.

¶ 8). 

Pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”), Courtyard Healthcare had to make 

contributions to the S.E.I.U. Local No. 4 Pension Fund (the “pension fund”), a multiemployer 

pension fund. (Id. ¶ 12). In 2019, the pension fund determined that Courtyard Healthcare did not 

make the necessary contributions. (Dkt. 34 ¶ 14). On August 13, 2019, it sent a “Notice and 

Demand” to Courtyard Healthcare for the payment of “withdrawal liability” calculated at 

$191,947. (Dkt. 57-1; Dkt. 65 ¶ 20). The letter outlined a payment schedule and requested the first 

Case: 1:20-cv-02749 Document #: 73 Filed: 03/28/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:286
2

payment within sixty days of the demand. (Dkt. 65 ¶ 18). Courtyard Healthcare neither disputed 

the calculation of withdrawal liability nor asked for a review of the figure. (Id. ¶ 23). On December 

9, 2019, after receiving nothing, the pension fund informed Courtyard Healthcare that it was 

delinquent in its payments and asked that it cure the delinquency within sixty days. (Dkt. 57-2; 

Dkt. 65 ¶ 25). Courtyard Healthcare again refused to make payments. (Dkt. 65 ¶ 25). 

The trustees of pension fund sued Courtyard Healthcare and Courtyard Realty, seeking to 

collect the “withdrawal liability” amount. (Dkt. 34); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They now move for 

summary judgment. (Dkt. 57). Summary judgment is appropriate if, construing all facts and 

drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, “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); see also Lewis v. Indiana Wesleyan Univ., 36 F.4th 755, 759 (7th Cir. 2022). “A genuine 

issue of material fact exists only if ‘there is sufficient evidence’” for a jury to return a verdict for 

the nonmoving party. Birch|Rea Partners, Inc. v. Regent Bank, 27 F.4th 1245, 1249 (7th Cir. 2022) 

(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). 

The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (“MPPAA”) “ensure[s] that 

withdrawing employers would not leave a plan with vested pension obligations that were only 

partially funded.” Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Bomar Nat’l, Inc., 253 F.3d 1011, 

1014 (7th Cir. 2001). Under the MPPAA, an employer who completely withdraws from a 

multiemployer pension plan must pay withdrawal liability. 29 U.S.C. § 1383. A “complete 

withdrawal ... occurs when an employer” either “permanently ceases to have an obligation to 

contribute under the plan” or “permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan.” Id.

1383(a); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1381(b)(2) (“The term ‘complete withdrawal’ means a complete 

withdrawal described in section 1383 of this title.”). To collect withdrawal liability, the pension 

Case: 1:20-cv-02749 Document #: 73 Filed: 03/28/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:287
3

plan must make an initial determination of “whether a withdrawal has occurred” and what liability

an employer owes. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cullum Cos., 973 F.2d 1333, 

1335 (7th Cir. 1992). The pension plan then notices and demands payment from the employer. 

29 U.S.C. §§ 1382, 1399(b)(1). If the employer does not contest the amount owed, the demand 

becomes “due and owing on the schedule set forth by the plan sponsor.” 29 U.S.C. § 1401(b). 

There is little doubt that Courtyard Healthcare must pay withdrawal liability. In 2019, the 

pension fund made the initial determination that Courtyard Healthcare no longer contributed to the 

pension fund. (Dkt. 34 ¶ 14). On August 13, 2019, the pension fund sent the necessary “Notice 

and Demand” for the payment of complete “withdrawal liability,” a sum of $191,947. (Dkt. 57-1; 

Dkt. 65 ¶ 20). Courtyard Healthcare did not contest the calculation. (Dkt. 65 ¶ 23). The demand 

then became “due and owing.” 29 U.S.C. § 1401(b). Courtyard Healthcare’s only answer is that 

the pension fund did not properly submit evidence under Local Rule 56.1, which governs how 

motions for summary judgment should be formatted. (See generally Dkt. 64). Assuming with 

skepticism that the pension fund did not comply with Local Rule 56.1, a district court has wide 

discretion in enforcing the rule’s compliance. See, e.g., Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 

625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). This Court exercises 

that discretion here by accepting the two affidavits appended to the motion for summary judgment, 

as nothing indicates they are unreliable. Therefore, the trustees of the pension plan are well within 

their rights to collect the unfunded liability from Courtyard Healthcare.

Courtyard Realty presents a better, albeit unconvincing, argument. It maintains that 

Courtyard Realty is a separate entity from Courtyard Healthcare and—given that only Courtyard 

Healthcare signed the CBA and that the pension fund corresponded solely with Courtyard 

Healthcare—it cannot be liable for a different company’s debts. But all “‘trades or businesses’ 

Case: 1:20-cv-02749 Document #: 73 Filed: 03/28/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:288
4

under ‘common control’ with the withdrawing employer are treated as a single entity for purposes 

of assessing and collecting withdrawal liability.” Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. 

Pessina Products, LLC, 706 F.3d 874, 878 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1))

(emphasis added). The evidence shows that Courtyard Healthcare and Courtyard Realty shared 

“common control” and, as such, common liability. The two companies were managed by the same 

people, Barak Baver and David Cheplowitz, and operated out of the same location, 2824 West 

Coyle. (Dkt. 65 ¶¶ 4–7). Courtyard Realty even leased property to Courtyard Healthcare. (Id. 8).

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. (Dkt 57). The 

Defendants, Courtyard Healthcare and Courtyard Realty, must pay the full amount of withdrawal 

liability ($191,947) plus interest at the prevailing rates, 29 U.S.C. § 1399(c)(6), and all “costs and 

expenses” incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1451(e). 

____________________________________

Virginia M. Kendall

United States District Judge

Date: March 28, 2023

Case: 1:20-cv-02749 Document #: 73 Filed: 03/28/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:289