# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 37 46

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Great er St . Lou is Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers W el fare Fu nd , an e m pl oyee be ne fit pl an ; Bran do n F li nn ; Ra y m on d Li ne ha n; Pas qu al e Lop ic co lo ; Gar y Ell io tt ; Dav id Gil li ck ; J am es Mo ll ; To m Dani el s; Jef

f Sch m id t; Adam

Kno eb el ; J ay Sch ul te he nr ic h; Ch arl es Bean ; No rm an Merl o, Tru st ees of t he Great er St . Lou is Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers W el fare Fu nd ; Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers Pen si on Trus t o f Great er St . Lou is , an e m

pl oyee be ne fit pl an ; J os ep h B eet z; Ric ha rd McLau gh li n; Je ffre y O’ Co nn el l; Don W il le y ; Gar y Ell io tt ; Will ia m

Lut h; Don al d Gra nt ; J os ep h Leri tz ; Ro be rt F rit z; Jay Schu lt eh en ric h, Tru st ees of t he Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers Pen si on Trus t o f Great er St . Lou is ; St . Lou is Vacat io n F un d - Va cat io n P la n, an

em pl oyee be ne fit pl an ; Gar y Ell io tt ; Br an do n F li nn ; J ay Sch ul te he nr ic h; Norm an Mer lo ; Will ia m

Lut h, Tru st ees of t he St. Lo ui s Vac at io n F un d - Va cat io n P la n; AGC - East ern Mi ss ou ri Lab or ers Jo in t Trai ni ng Fu nd , an e m pl oyee be ne fit pl an ; Larry Bl oo m er; Don W il le y ; Pe rri Pry or ; Gar y Ell io tt ; Ri ch ard McGu ire ; Br an do n Fl in n; Jo hn B. Mo rg an ; Ph il Hoch er; Ro be rt J . W es ol ic h; Fran ci s R . W ojeh ows ki ; Cl iff Land ; J oh n J . Sm it h, Sr ., Trus te es of t he AGC-Eas te rn Mi ss ou ri Lab or ers ’ Jo in t Trai ni ng Fu nd ; Lo cal Uni on Nos . 42 -5 3- 11 0 Lab or ers Int ern at io na l Un io n o f

Nor th Am eri ca AFL-C IO, lab or org an iz at io ns

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Park -Ma rk , Inc ., a Mis so ur i co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Sep te m be r 19 , 20 12 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 23 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

The Great er St

. Lou is Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers W el fare Fu nd al on g wit h se ve ral

ot he r em pl oyee be ne fit fun ds an d th ei r tru st ees (co ll ect iv el y , “ th e Fu nd s” ), br ou gh t th is act io n to reco ve r de li nq ue nt pa y m en ts fro m Park -Ma rk
, In c. un de r th e Em pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co me S e c u rit y Act (“ ERISA”)
, 29 U.S.C. §§ 10 01 -1 46 1. Park -Ma rk

co nt en ds th at it sh ou ld no t b e li ab le fo r th es e de li nq ue nt pa y m en ts be cau se it

m is ta ke nl y m ad e si gn ifi can t ov erp ay m en ts th at req ui re a se t-o ff an d a refu nd

. The
di st ric t co ur t gra nt ed su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Fu nd s. We affir m

. 1

I.

Park -Ma rk is a Mi ss ou ri co rp or at io n th at pa in ts st rip e s o n pa rk in g lo ts an d

ro ad s in Mi ss ou ri an d Ill in oi s. In Octo be r 20 01
, P a r k- Mar k ag reed to be bo un d by

a co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t (“ CBA”) wit h th e Ea st ern Mi ss ou ri Lab or ers ’
D is tri ct Co un ci l an d al l su bs eq ue nt CBAs

. The CBA req ui red Park -Ma rk t o mak e

m on th ly co nt rib ut io ns ba se d on th e ho ur s wor ke d by co ve red em p l o yees to th e Great er St . Lou is Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers W el fare Fu nd s, th e Co ns tru ct io n Lab or ers P e n s i o n Tr u st of Great er St

. Lou is
, th e St

. Lou is Vacat io n Fu nd
, an d th e East er n Mi ss ou ri Jo in t Trai ni ng Fu nd

. The Fu nd s are em pl o ye e w e l f

a re be ne fit pl an s

or ga ni zed pu rs ua nt to ERISA th at pr ov id e he al th in su ran ce co ve rag e an d ret ire m en t be ne fit s.

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Park -Ma rk an d th e Fu nd s ha ve be en in vo lv ed in li ti ga t io n fo r se ve ral y ears

rel at in g to se pa rat e di sp ut es

. In Feb ru ary 20 10
, co un se l fo r th e Fu nd s no ti fie d Park

Mar k th at an in te rn al au di t rev eal ed th at Park -Ma rk h a d m ad e ov erp ay m en ts to th e Fu nd s du rin g th e pe rio d of Apr il 1, 20 04
, th ro ug h Sep te m be r 30
, 20 09

. The n, in
Nov em be r 20 10
, th e Fu nd s’ acco un ti ng fir m de te rm in ed th at th e ov erp ay ment s
to ta le d $5 48 ,25 7.3 9. Park -Ma rk ha d m ad e pa y m en ts to th e Fu nd s fo r ho ur s wor ke d by it s em pl oyees th at were no t pe rfo rm ed in th e juri sd ic ti on of th e CBA. Park -Ma rk

st op pe d m ak in g pa y m en ts to th e Fu nd s fro m Octo be r 20 10 th ro ug h Decem be r 20 10
be cau se th e Fu nd s d id no t p ro vi de cred it for th e o ve rp ay m en ts

.

As a res ul t, th e Fu nd s br ou g ht th is act io n fo r m is si ng pa y m en ts fro m Sep te m be r 1, 20 10
, fo rward an d un ti m el y co nt rib ut io ns m ad e be twee n Octo be r 20 08

an d Aug us t 20 10
, p u r s u a n t t o 29 U.S.C. § 11 32 (g )(2 ). Park -Ma rk an swe red th e

co m pl ai nt , as se rti ng as an affi rm at iv e de fen se th at a se t-o ff sh ou ld be ap pl ie d to an y da m ag es award ed th e Fu nd s an d th at an y ex ces s be rem it te d to Park -Ma rk

. Park

Mar k la te r am en de d it s an swe r to in cl ud e a co un te rcl ai m fo r res ti tu ti on , sp eci fic al ly

se ek in g o ve rp ay m en ts it ha d m ad e to th e Fu nd s.

The Fu nd s m ov ed for su m m ary jud gm en t, an d t he di st ric t co ur t gr an te d t he ir

mo t i o n

. The di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed th at a fed eral co m m on -la w cau se of act io n

ex is t s f or ov erp ay m en ts m is ta ke nl y m ad e un de r ERISA. App lying a va rie ty of

eq ui ta bl e fact or s to Park -Ma rk ’s se t-o ff de fen se , th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th e pr in ci pl es of eq ui ty di d no t de m an d a refu nd
, bu t th e co ur t di d no t ad dr es s Park -Ma rk ’s

co un te rcl ai m

for res ti tu ti on . Park -Ma rk th en m ov ed th e d is tri ct co ur t t o re co ns id er it s or de r gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th e co ur t (1 ) di sp os ed of Park -Ma rk ’s

co un te rcl ai m fo r res ti tu ti on wit ho ut th e pa rti es rai si ng th e is su e an d (2 ) m is ap pl ie d
th e la w wit h res pe ct to Park -Ma rk ’s se t-o ff de fen se

. Afte r th e Fu nd s res po nd ed
, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed t h e mo t i o n to reco ns id er, ho ld in g Park -Ma rk fai le d to fil e a fo rm al pl ead in g co ns ti tu ting a co unt erclai m

. Add it io na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t reas on ed

-3

-th at ev en if Park -Ma rk ha d rai se d su ch a cl ai m , it fu ll y ad dr es se d th e co un te rcl ai m fo r

res ti tu ti on by anal y zi ng Park -Ma rk ’s set -o ff d efen se . Park -Ma rk no w app eal s.

II.

Park -Ma rk rai se s tw o p o in ts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, Park -Ma rk co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred by di sm is si ng it s cou nt ercl ai m whe n th e cl ai m was no t rai se d by
ei th er pa rty. Seco nd , P ark -Ma rk arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red by h ol di ng th at

eq ui ty di d no t fav or a se t-o ff or res ti tu ti on

. Co ns id eri ng each po in t in tu rn , we rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. See Hack et t v. St an da rd In s. Co ., 55 9 F .3d 82 5, 8 29 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

A.

Fi rs t, Park -Ma rk co nt en ds th e di s t r ic t co ur t erre d by di sm is si ng it s

co un te rcl ai m fo r res ti tu ti on be cau se th e co un te rcl ai m was no t pr op erl y be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. A tri al co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at a cl ai m is rip e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Cro well v. Cam pb el l So up Co
., 26 4 F.3 d 75 6,
76 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Gen eral ly, a co ur t “ do es no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y g ran ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e reco rd be fo re it if th e pa rty op po si ng su m m ary jud gm en t

se ek s n ei th er a co nt in ua nc e n or fur th er d is co ve ry .” Id

.

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Park -Ma rk ne it he r 2

req ue st ed a co nt in ua nc e, no r so ug ht to ha ve th e di sc ov ery de ad li ne ex te nd ed

. In de ed
,

The di st ric t co ur t in co rrec tl y fo un d in it s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n th at Park

2 Mar k fai le d to fil e an y fo rm al pl ead in g whi ch co ns ti tu te d a c ou nt ercl ai m

. In fact
, Park -Ma rk fil ed an am en de d a ns wer o n Ap ril 6, 2 01 2, th at in cl ud ed a co un te rcl ai m fo r res ti tu ti on

. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co u r t ’s fin di ng th at Park -Ma rk ha d no t fil ed a

co un te rcl ai m was in accu rat e, it do es no t affe ct th e ou tc om e of th e cas e fo r th e reas on s

ex pl ai ne d a bo ve

.
-4

-th e di sc ov ery de ad li ne ha d pa ss ed whe n th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Fu nd s. Add it io na ll y , Park -Ma rk ’s affi rm at iv e de fen se so ug ht a se t-o ff

ag ai ns t an y da m ag es reco ve red by t he Fu nd s an d al so req ue st ed th at ov erp a ym en ts in ex ces s of th e am ou nt owe d to th e Fu nd s be rem it te d to Park -Ma rk

. The le ga l an d
fact ua l an al y si s fo r th e se t-o ff de fen se an d th e co un te rcl ai m are th e sa m e ; each

req ui res th e co ur t to de te rm in e if a ret ur n of ov erp ay m en ts is pe rm it te d an d th en if it
is eq ui ta bl e. The di st ric t cou rt’s ana lysis of th e se t-o ff defen se in it s ord er gran ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t w oul d ne ce ssa ri ly dis pose of Park -Ma rk ’s res ti tu ti on cl ai m

. Park

Mar k do es no t refu te th is

. The refo re, th e is su e was fu ll y br ie fed an d pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t be cau se it in vo lv ed th e sa m e is su es as th e se t-o ff de fen se whi ch was th e fo cu s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t c o u r t d i d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ho ld in g th at it s in it ia l or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t di sp o s e d of
Park -Ma rk ’s cla im

for res ti tu ti on

.

B.

Park -Ma rk arg ue s o n ap pe al th at (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t in co rrec tl y di sm is se d
Park

- M a r k’s se t-o ff de fen se an d (2 ) if th e di st ric t co ur t ha d reac he d Park -Ma rk ’s

res ti tu ti on cl ai m , it wou ld ha ve he ld Park

- M a rk was en ti tl ed to a refu nd

. Bec au se each cl ai m req ui res th e sa m e le ga l an d fa ct ua l an al y si s, we co ns id er th em to ge th er. W e m us t fir st de te rm in e if Park -Ma rk was en ti tl ed to br in g a fed eral c o mm o n

- la w

cau se of act io n fo r a m is ta ke n pa y m en t, an d if so , whe th er eq ui ty fav or s a rep ay m en t.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo an d we wil l
affi rm th e gr an t of su m

m ary jud ge m en t “ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of
la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). A pa rty op po si ng su m m ary jud gm en t m

us t do m or e th an al le ge th at so m e fact ua l di sp ut e ex is ts ; it m us t pr es en t a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al
fact

. Qui nn v. St

. Lo u i s Cn ty., 65 3 F.3 d 74 5, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). A no nm ov in g
pa rty “ m us t co m e fo rward wit h sp eci fic fact s sh owi ng th at th ere is a ge nu in e is su e fo r

-5

-tri al .” Co ns eco Life In s. Co

. v. W il li am s, 62 0 F.3 d 90 2, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Ja ur eq ui v. Cart er Mfg

. Co
., 17 3 F.3 d 10 76
, 10 85 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (h ol di ng a p a r t y op po si ng su m m ary jud gm en t m ay no t res t on al le ga ti on s o r de ni al s)

.

Park -Ma rk co nt en ds it m ad e ov erp ay m en ts in th e am ou nt of $5 48 ,25 7.3 9,
ba se d on a rep or t pr ep ared by th e Fu nd s’s acco un ta nt s, an d th e Fu nd s co nc ed ed th at

ov erp ay m en ts were m ad e fo r th e p ur po se s of th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Und er ERISA, co nt rib ut io ns m ad e by a m is ta ke of la w o r f a c t m ay be ret ur ne d

“ wit hi n 6 m on th s aft er th e pl an ad m in is tra to r de te rm in es th at th e co nt rib ut io n was

m ad e by su ch a m is ta ke .” 29 U.S.C § 11 03 (c)( 2) (A)(i i). Thi s Co ur t ha s joi ne d ot he r ci rcu it s by ho ld in g th at “ an em pl oyer ha s a fed eral co m

m on la w act io n fo r res ti tu ti on of m is ta ke nl y m ad e pa y m en ts to an ERISA p la n.” You ng Am ., Inc . v. Un io n C en t. Life Ins . Co., 1 01 F.3d 54 6, 5 48 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

Park -M a r k p r o p e r l y a s s e r t e d t h e f i r s t p r e r e q u i s i t e i n a s s e r t i n g a f e d e r al

co m m on -la w cl ai m fo r res ti tu ti on by al le gi ng i t m ad e a m is ta ke of la w or fact in

co nt rib ut in g to th e Fu nd s or , at th e ve ry le as t, su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d a m at eri al di sp ut e

ex is te d. Howev er, th e Fu nd s co nt en d th at Park -Ma rk ha s no t su ffi ci en tl y su pp or te d

t h e s e al le ga ti on s wit h fact s to de m on st rat e th at th e ov erp ay m en ts were m ad e by a

m is ta ke of fact or la w. Mi ch ael S o l o mo n , Park -Ma rk ’s pr es id en t, st at ed in an affi da vi t th at th e c o mp a n y m ad e th e ov erp ay m en ts to th e Fu nd s ba se d on th e

m is ta ke n be li ef th at it was req ui red to m ak e co nt rib ut io ns fo r al l ho ur s wor ke d un de r th e CBA, in cl ud in g fo r th e ho ur s wor ke d ou t of th e CBA’s juri sd ic ti o n

. The
Adm in is tra ti ve Man ag er of on e of th e Fu nd s, Bern ard Di f a n i
, st at ed in hi s se co nd
affi da vi t th at th e Fu nd s’ acco un ta nt s co nc lu de d th at Park -Ma rk ha d m ad e pa y m en ts fo r ho ur s work ed ou ts id e th e juri sd ic ti on of t he CBA, an d fo r ot he r wor k fo r whi ch

t h e C B A d i d no t req ui re co nt rib ut io ns

. Bas ed on th e affi da vi ts of So lo m on an d
Difa ni
, ev id en ce ex is ts th at Park -Ma rk m ad e ov erp ay m en ts un de r an erro ne ou s le ga l

or fact ua l u nd ers ta nd in g.

-6

-Eve n th ou gh ov erp ay m en ts were m a d e , a refu nd is no t au to m at ic

. Rat he r,

Park -Ma rk m

us t de m on st rat e th at res ti tu ti on is eq ui ta bl e. Thi s Co ur t in You n g Am eri ca he ld th at res ti tu ti on wil l be gr an te d if th e rem ed y is “ eq ui ta bl e u nd er th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” re fe re nc in g fact or s de ve lo pe d by th e Sev en th Ci rcu it

. Id

. (ci ti ng UIU
Sev eran ce Pay Trus t Fu nd v. Loc al Uni on No. 18 -U, 99 8 F.2 d 50 9, 51 3 ( 7 t h Ci r. 19 93 )). In UIU Sev eran ce Fu nd
, th e co ur t li st ed th e fo ll owi ng no n- ex cl us iv e fact or s fo r an al y zi ng if re st it ut io n i s eq ui ta bl e:

(1 ) are un au th or iz ed co nt rib ut io ns th e so rt of m is ta ke n pa y m en ts th at eq ui ty de m an ds be refu nd ed ? (2 ) h a s th e Uni on de la y ed br in gi ng th is
act io n fo r s o l on g th at la ch es , or so m e ot he r eq ui ta bl e de fen se , ba rs

reco ve ry ? (3 ) in th e sa m e ve in
, ha s th e Uni on , by co nt in ui ng th e pa y m en ts fo r y ears wit ho ut ap pa ren t qu es ti o n, so m eh ow rat ifi ed pa st pa y m en ts ? an d (4 ) si nc e t h e F u nd ha s ag reed th at it is no t en ti tl ed to ke ep th e di sp ut ed am ou nt in an y ev en t, can th e Uni on de m on st rat e th at th e pa rty fro m who m it se ek s pa y m en t wou ld b e u n ju s t ly en ric he d if

reco ve ry were d en ie d?

UIU Sev eran ce Fu nd
, 99 8 F.2 d at 51 3 (in te rn al fo ot no te om it te d)

. Als o, a fu nd ’s

po li ci es can no t be arb it rary an d cap ric io u s , in cl ud in g th e de ci si on no t to refu nd

m is ta ke nl y

m ad e p ay m en ts . See Yo un g Am ., 10 1 F .3d at 5 49

. 3

Park -Ma rk co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t m is ap pl ie d th e la w, arg ui n g t h a t th e 3
st an d a r d ap pl ie d to ERISA cl ai m s in ot he r co ur ts su pp or ts a refu nd

. See, e.g ., W hi two rth Bro s. St or ag e Co

. v. Cen t. St at es Se. & Sw. Areas Pen si on Fu nd
, 98 2 F.2 d 1 0 0 6, 10 16 (6 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ A p en si on fu nd ’s r efu sa l to refu nd co nt rib ut io n s p a i d by m is ta ke is arb it rary un le ss ne ces sa ry to th e f i n a nc ia l so un dn es s of th e pl an or jus ti fie d by so m e ot he r co m pe ll in g reas on .”). Alt ho ug h a “ ‘sis te r ci rcu it ’s reas on ed de ci si on de se rv es gr eat weig ht an d pr eced en ti al va lu e,’” Uni te d St at es v. Aug in as h, 26 6 F.3 d 78 1, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ), we de cl i ne to ex pa nd ou r ho ld in g in You ng Am eri ca o ut si de of t he fram ewo rk art ic ul at ed in th at cas e.

-7

-App lying th es e eq ui ta bl e fact or s to th is cas e, we fir st co ns id er if th e

ov erp ay m en ts are th e so rt of m is ta ke n p a ym e n t s th at eq ui ty de m an ds refu nd ed

. Res ti tu ti on is in eq ui ta bl e whe re a pa y or “ ob ta in ed a be ne fit th at he in te nd s to ret ai n fro m th e pa y m en t” m ad e, bu t n o w s e e k s to ha ve th e pa y m en t ret ur ne d. Ope rat in g Eng ’rs Loc al 13 9 Heal th Ben efi t Fu nd v. Gus ta fs on Co ns t. Co rp ., 25 8 F.3 d 64 5, 65 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng ot he r cas es ho ld in g th e sa m e). Ove rp ay m en ts m ay be “ ti ed to hi gh er p en si on an d wel fare be ne fit s fo r th e d efen da nt ’s em pl oyees.” Id . Ins ur an ce

an d pe ns io n be ne fit s are co nt in ge nt an d de ferr ed , r es pe ct iv el y , s o al th ou gh th ere is

no im m ed ia te rece ip t, an em pl oyer m ay rece iv e an im m ed ia te be ne fit be cau se th e
g r e a te r pe ns io n an d welf are be ne fit s red uc e th e em pl oyees’ de m an ds fo r hi gh er
wag es . Id. at 65 1- 52

.

The Fu nd s pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Park -Ma rk em pl oyees rece iv ed in su ran ceco ve rag e be ne fit s an d pe ns io n be ne fit s refl ect in g th e gr eat er ov erp ay m en ts m ad e by
Park -Ma rk

. One of th e Fu nd s’ a dm in is tra to rs , B ern ard Difa ni , s ta te d in hi s se co nd

a f f i da vi t th at al l of Park -Ma rk ’s CBA co nt rib ut io ns , in cl ud in g ov erp ay m en ts , be ne fit te d Park -Ma rk ’s em pl oyees th ro ug h he al th in su ran ce co ve rag e a n d p e n si on

co nt rib ut io ns

. Add it io na ll y , Difa ni st at ed th at if th e ov erp ay m en ts were ret ur ne d, th e Fu nd s wou ld be req ui red to de du ct pe ns io n cred it s fro m Park -Ma rk ’s em pl oyees th at were b as ed on th e o ve rp ay m en ts

.

Afte r th e Fu nd s pr es en te d th is ev id en ce, Park -Ma rk di d no th in g to reh ab il it at e it s at ta ck ed as se rti on s, no r di d it of fer ad di ti on al ev id en ce or se ek fu rth er di sc ov ery. Park -Ma rk no w arg ue s th ro ug h un su pp or te d hypo th et ic al s th at th e pa y m en ts it m ad e
to th e Fu nd s di d no t ne ces sa ril y co ns ti tu te a be ne fit

. Asi de fro m on e e-m ai l an d th e 4

On ap pe al a n d fo r th e fir st ti m e, Park -Ma rk arg ue s sp eci fic se ct io ns of th e 4 C B A r a i s e an is su e of m at eri al fact th at no t al l ov erp ay m en ts were rece iv ed a s be ne fit s by it s em

pl oyees. Sp eci fic al ly, Park -Ma rk co nt en d s t h a t se ct io n 5.0 6, Trai ni ng an d App ren ti ce, an d se ct io n 5.0 7, Si te Adv an cem en t Fu nd
, in di cat e th at Park -Ma rk em

pl oyees m ay no t hav e rece iv ed be ne fit s fro m th e ov erp ay m en ts m ad e

-8

-acco un ta nt ’s rep or t, th e on ly ot he r ev id en ce th at Park -Ma rk pr es en te d to th e di st ric t

co ur t was th e affi da vi t of it s pr es id en t. Ult im at el y , Park -Ma rk pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to refu te th e Fu nd s’ pr oo f th at refu nd in g th e ov erp ay m en t wou ld ad ve rs el y

a f f e c t P a rk -Ma rk ’s em

pl oyees. See Co ns eco , 62 0 F.3 d at 91 0 (h ol di ng su m m ar y jud gm en t p ro pe r whe re pa rty fa il ed to pr ov id e “ so m e rel ev an t ev id en ce” to di sp ut e th e fac ts pre se nt ed ).

The se co nd fact or to co ns id er is if an eq ui ta bl e de fen se ex is ts du e to a de la y in
br in gi ng th e cl ai m

. See UIU Sev eran ce Fu nd
, 99 8 F.2 d at 51 3. “ Lach es ap pl ie s whe n

a cl ai m an t in ex cu sa bl y de la y s in as se rti ng it s cl ai m an d th ereb y un du ly pr ejud ic es th e
pa rty ag ai ns t who m th e cl ai m ul ti m at el y is as se rte d.” Hub ba rd Feed s, In c. v. Ani m al
Feed Su pp le m en t, In c., 18 2 F.3 d 59 8, 60 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Not on ly ha ve th e pa rti es be en in vo lv ed in on go in g li ti ga ti on fo r a pe rio d of y ears , bu t Park -Ma rk ag rees th at it be ga n m ak in g ov erp ay m en ts in 20 04

. Park -Ma rk arg ue s th at it di d no t le arn of th e

ov erp ay m en ts un ti l Feb ru ary 2 01 0 whe n th e m is ta ke was di sc ov ered by t he Fu nd s’

acco un ta nt s. Thi s fa c t o r st il l weig hs in fav or of th e Fu nd s, ho wev er, be cau se th e CBA ou tl in es whe n pa y

m en ts sh ou ld be m ad e by un am bi gu ou sl y de fin in g th e sc op e of th e CBA’s juri sd ic ti on

. Park -Ma rk ’s de la y in br in gi ng th e cl ai m was in ex cu sa bl e,

an d ha s pr ejud ic ed th e Fu nd s who are pl aced in th e po si ti on of at te m pt in g to un win d
si x y ears of pa y m en ts by tryin g to cal cu la te whe th er Park -Ma rk ’s em pl oyees tru l y

rece iv ed be ne fit s fro m th e pa y m en ts

. See W en ig er v. Su cces s Mi ni ng C o

. , 2 2 7 F.
54 8, 55 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 15 ) (“ [I]gn or an ce whi ch is th e effe ct of in ex cu sa bl e ne gl ig en ce is no ex cu se fo r la ch es

. . . .”). The refo re, we co nc lu de th is eq ui ta bl e fact or fav or s th e Fu nd s.

to th e Fu nd s. Bec au se we do no t co ns id er an arg um en t fir st rai se d on ap pe al un le ss

a “ m an ife st in

jus ti ce” wou ld res ul t, we de cl in e to ad dr e s s th is arg um en t. See Hen ni ng v. Mai ns tre et Ban k, 53 8 F.3 d 97 5, 9 7 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.
-9

-Thi rd
, a refu nd m ay be in eq ui ta bl e if a co m pa ny’ s co nt in ue d, un qu es ti on ed

pa y m en t ov er a pe rio d of y ears rat ifi ed th e pr ev io us pa y m en t s. See id

. In UIU
Sev eran ce, a bu si ne ss rep res en ta ti ve fo r a un io n in crea se d th e co nt rib ut io n le ve ls th e

un io n was m ak in g to hi s be ne fit pl an , an d th e un io n arg ue d th at t h e s e ad di ti on al

pa y m en ts were a “ ro gu e act ” ta ke n wit ho ut au th or iz at io n. Id

. at 51 1. Here, ho wev er, Park -Ma rk au th or iz ed th e ov erp ay m en ts f o r f i ve y ears

. Park -Ma rk arg ue s th at al th ou gh th e pa y m en ts were au th or iz ed
, it ov erp ai d th e Fu nd s ba se d on a m is ta ke of
la w or fact

. Bec au se th ere is no di sp ut e whe th er the ov erp ay m en ts were aut ho riz ed by Pa r k

- M a r k
, we do no t co ns id er if th is eq ui ta bl e fact or fav or s Park -Ma rk or th e Fu nd s. 5

Fo ur th
, eq ui ty m ay

fav or a rep ay m en t i f th e Fu nd s wer e u nju st ly en ric he d by
Park -Ma rk

. See id

. As d is cu ss ed ab ov e, no ev id en ce was pr es en te d by Pa rk -Ma rk
refu ti ng th e Fu nd s’ e vi de nc e th at th ey were no t un jus tl y en ric he d. Equ it y do es no t fav or a refu nd whe re no un jus t enri ch m en t occu rred

. Cf. D ic ke y v. Royal Ban ks of
Mo
., 11 1 F.3 d 58 0, 58 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ [A] co ur t wil l fo rce a de fen da nt to di sg or ge a win df al l i f it is eq ui ta bl e to do so .”). Ther efo re, t hi s fa ct or weig hs in fav or of th e Fu nd s.

Fi na ll y , Park -Ma rk co nt en ds th at th e Fu nd s’ act io ns an d, m o r e s p e c ifi cal ly,
th ei r de ci si on to ret ai n th e ov erp ay m en ts are arb it rary an d cap ric io us

. W e di sa gr ee. Bas ed on th e ev id en ce in th e reco rd
, th e F u n d s de ci de d to ret ai n th e ov erp ay m en ts aft er in ve st ig at in g th e m at te r an d de te rm in in g th a t r e f u n d in g th e ov erp ay m en ts to Park -Ma rk wou ld ne ga ti ve ly im pa ct th e pe ns io n cred it s Park -Ma rk ’s em pl oyees ha d

accr ue d. On th es e fact s, we do no t fi nd th is co nd uc t t o b e arb it rary an d cap ric io us

.

The fact or s art ic ul at ed by UIU Sev eran ce are no t a “ co m pl et e cat al og ” of wha t 5

a co ur t m ay co ns id er, no r is an y on e fact or co nt ro ll in g. See UIU Sev eran ce, 99 8 F.3 d
at 51 3. Alt ho ug h we fin d th at th e is su e of r a t i f i c a ti on fav or s ne it he r pa rty, we ul ti m at el y

ho ld th at th e th ree r em ai ni ng eq ui ta bl e fac to rs do no t fa vo r res ti tu ti on

.
-1 0-Cf. You ng Am
., 10 1 F.3 d at 54 9 (h ol di ng on e-year li m it on pr em iu m refu nd s arb it rary

an d c ap ric io us ).

Bas ed on th e ab ov e an al y si s, eq ui ty do es no t fav or a refu nd on th es e fact s. W e

co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Fu nd s.

III.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-