In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 18-2273

TRUSTEES OF THE SUBURBAN TEAMSTERS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS 

PENSION FUND,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

THE E COMPANY, a dissolved Illinois Corporation, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:15-cv-10323 — Thomas M. Durkin, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 18, 2019 — DECIDED JANUARY 29, 2019

____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, BARRETT, and SCUDDER, Circuit 

Judges.

SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Under the terms of a collective 

bargaining agreement, T&W Edmier Corporation regularly 

contributed on behalf of its employees to the Suburban 

Teamsters of Northern Illinois Pension Fund. But in 2014 

T&W ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions, 

prompting the Pension Fund to assess withdrawal liability of 
2 No. 18-2273

$640,900. The Pension Fund sought to collect payment by 

mailing a notice of the withdrawal liability to T&W and 

several affiliated entities, only to see their collection efforts 

ignored. The Trustees of the Pension Fund eventually sued to 

collect payment, and that action culminated in the district 

court ordering T&W, along with several other individuals and 

entities under common control, to pay the withdrawal 

liability. Now seeking to vacate the district court’s judgment, 

T&W and the other defendants argue that their due process 

rights were violated when the Pension Fund initiated 

collection of the withdrawal liability by mailing notice to 

some but not all of them. Seeing no error, we affirm. 

I

T&W Edmier Corporation operated a construction 

business in tandem with The E Company. T&W owned the 

construction equipment while The E Company hired and 

provided employees. Brothers Thomas and William Edmier 

each owned 50% of T&W. Kevin Edmier, William’s son, 

owned and operated The E Company. Pursuant to the terms 

of a collective bargaining agreement with its employees, T&W 

participated in the Suburban Teamsters of Northern Illinois

multi-employer pension plan, and, for its part, The E 

Company agreed to assume joint and several liability for 

T&W’s obligations to the Pension Fund. In 2014, however, 

T&W and The E Company ceased operations, dissolved, and 

withdrew from the plan.

The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act require a covered plan 

to assess withdrawal liability against a withdrawing employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 1396. Withdrawal liability, as its name 

implies, is designed to prevent shifting the financial burden 
No. 18-2273 3

of employees’ vested pension benefits to other employers in 

the multi-employer plan. We explained these principles at 

some length in Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas 

Pension Fund v. Slotky, 956 F.2d 1369, 1371–72 (7th Cir. 1992).

Consistent with ERISA’s mandate, the Pension Fund 

mailed a notice of withdrawal liability on April 30, 2015, a past 

due notice on August 17, 2015, and a default and acceleration 

notice on November 12, 2015. The notice went to T&W, The E 

Company, and the Edmier Corporation (another entity 

wholly owned by Thomas Edmier). Even more specifically, 

the Pension Fund sent the notice to the attention of Thomas, 

William, and Kevin Edmier, as well as attorney George 

Grumley, the registered agent of both T&W and The E 

Company. At their depositions, Thomas, William, and Kevin 

Edmier acknowledged receiving the notice.

The Pension Fund’s notices went unanswered and, as a 

result, the Pension Fund’s Trustees initiated a lawsuit in the 

district court. Ignoring the Pension Fund’s requests for 

payment had significant legal consequences for the 

defendants. Congress has required that all disputes over 

withdrawal liability be resolved through arbitration, see 29 

U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1), and an employer’s failure to arbitrate 

means “the plan can then immediately file suit to collect the 

entire amount of withdrawal liability, and in that proceeding 

the employer will have forfeited any defenses it could have 

presented to the arbitrator,” Nat’l Shopmen Pension Fund v. 

DISA Industries, Inc., 653 F.3d 573, 579 (7th Cir. 2011). 

Our case law has recognized a narrow exception to this 

general rule of forfeiture for a party who “had absolutely no 

reason to believe that they might be deemed members of a 

controlled group” but is nonetheless sued and alleged to be 
4 No. 18-2273

liable for another party’s withdrawal liability based on 

ERISA’s “controlled group” provision. See Slotky, 956 F.2d at

1373. The controlled group provision imputes liability to all 

“trades or businesses” under “common control” with another 

party who is liable for the withdrawal liability. See 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1301(b)(1). And our decision in Slotky allows unsuspecting 

defendants who are sued in district court but had no idea they

might be liable as members of a controlled group to litigate 

that question—membership in a controlled group. See 956 

F.2d at 1373.

Relying on this framework, the district court concluded 

that T&W, The E Company, and the Edmier Corporation had 

forfeited all defenses to liability, including the defense that 

they were not members of a controlled group, by failing to 

arbitrate after receiving the Pension Fund’s notice of withdrawal liability. This outcome reflected a straightforward application of these defendants not complying with the clear arbitration mandate in 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1). 

As for each of the other defendants (Thomas, William, and

Kevin Edmier; K. Edmier & Sons LLC; The William Edmier 

Trust; Lake Street Realty, Inc.; and E&E Equipment & Leasing), the district court explained that they too had likely forfeited all defenses as they were not the type of unsuspecting 

defendant contemplated in Slotky. Put differently, the district 

court reasoned that none of these defendants had such a credible claim of surprise (at being a member of a controlled 

group) to sidestep ERISA’s arbitration requirement. Regardless, the district court went further and determined as a factual matter that each of these defendants was a trade or business under common control with another party who received 

the notice of withdrawal liability. This reasoning finds strong 
No. 18-2273 5

support in the record and resulted in the district court concluding that each of these defendants was liable under 

ERISA’s controlled group provision. 

In the end, the district court entered summary judgment 

for the Pension Fund’s Trustees and ordered the defendants 

to pay the full $640,900 of withdrawal liability, plus interest,

liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. As members of 

a controlled group, each of the defendants became jointly and

severally liable for payment. See Central States, Southeast and 

Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Koder, 969 F.2d 451, 452 (7th 

Cir. 1992) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1301(b)(1)).

II

The defendants challenge the district court’s judgment by 

arguing that the Pension Fund’s notice of withdrawal liability 

violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In their 

view, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) required the 

Pension Fund to serve the notice of withdrawal liability on 

each of them and to explain the standard for controlled group 

liability under ERISA in the notice. This contention misses the 

mark.

The defendants’ reliance on Mullane is misplaced because 

all parties agree that judicial proceedings commenced in the 

district court with proper service of process (notice of the 

complaint) to each defendant. The due process standard announced in Mullane—a decision requiring sufficient notice of 

a pending judicial proceeding—was therefore satisfied. No 

reading of Mullane, however, supports the view that ERISA’s 

controlled group liability provisions and accompanying
6 No. 18-2273

procedural framework (in which a defendant forfeits certain 

defenses by failing to arbitrate) violate due process.

A related observation is in order. The defendants colloquially and imprecisely allege a violation of due process, time 

and again citing Mullane. In no way, shape, or form did any 

due process violation occur here. The defendants who received—but chose to ignore—the notice of withdrawal liability had every opportunity to arbitrate and yet failed to do so, 

resulting, by operation of ERISA, in a waiver of all defenses 

to withdrawal liability. No unfairness inheres in that outcome. And, as for the defendants who did not receive the notice of withdrawal liability but nonetheless found themselves 

named in a federal lawsuit, the district court provided them a 

full and fair opportunity to litigate their liability as members 

of a controlled group. Nothing about the path those defendants traveled offends due process.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.