Opinion ID: 573191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirement of a Hearing to Show Irreparable Harm

Text: 14 Rentar claims the district court had to establish some procedure by which an allegedly withdrawing employer could demonstrate the irreparable harm it would suffer as a result of the court's order compelling it to make interim payments. Originally, Rentar sought a hearing, but has since modified the request to the broader form outlined above. For support Rentar relies upon McNicholas. 15 In McNicholas the employer appealed from an order compelling interim payments, arguing that making the payments would result in severe financial hardship and essentially preclude its resumption of operations. McNicholas, 819 F.2d at 685. It produced figures showing a current annual income barely exceeding the required monthly payments. Under these circumstances the court ruled, where the trustees bring an action to compel payment pending arbitration, the court should consider the probability of the employer's success in defeating liability before the arbitrator and the impact of the demanded interim payments on the employer and his business when exercising its discretion over the issuance of the order compelling payments. Id. 16 In Central Transport we also addressed the question of the court's discretion to order interim payments:McNicholas is at most a recognition that if the fund's claim is frivolous--if the arbitrator is almost certain to rule for the employer--then the plan is engaged in a ploy that a court may defeat.... Having assured itself that the plan's claim is legitimate, however, the court should order the making of interim payments and leave the rest to the arbitrator. 17 Central Transport, 935 F.2d 114, 119 (7th Cir.1991). We hold here that irreparable harm becomes important only if the employer makes an affirmative showing that the pension fund lacks a colorable claim. This standard is compatible, we believe, with the due process interests of the employer and with those of the statutory scheme. 18 Rentar offers two reasons why the Fund's case is frivolous. First, the Rentar defendants were not a parent company or controlled group of Couzens at the time of its alleged withdrawal. Rentar's continued reliance on this as a defense ignores the nature of the Fund's claim. Section 1392 allows a pension fund to reach even companies who did not own or control a company at the time of withdrawal. 1 Second, [c]omposition of Rentar group should be determined at hearing or by other presentation of evidence of its composition. Rentar offers no support for this assertion in its briefs, choosing instead to focus on the irreparable harm issue. 19 Even assuming these two claims would be enough to warrant a determination that Rentar might succeed before the arbitrator, Rentar has offered no evidence whatever to support its assertion of irreparable harm. Rentar has submitted no affidavit or balance sheet to the court. Nor does it argue that due process requires a hearing, but merely asserts its view that the request was not out of line. While this may be true, it does not mean that the district court was required to grant a hearing or other procedure when no issue of fact existed. It should have come as no surprise to Rentar that without the production of at least some evidence to raise a factual question, the district court was under no obligation to hold a hearing on the question or to establish some other procedure to receive evidence. 20 For these reasons, the decision below is AFFIRMED.