Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Painters District Council No. 58 v. RDB Universal Services, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

August 16, 2016

PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 58, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
RDB UNIVERSAL SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and to clarify Court’s Order granting and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Part. [ECF No. 71].

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs represent a multi-employer pension plan, welfare pension plans, a vacation plan, an apprenticeship plan, and a labor organization. Plaintiff Painters District Council No. 58 (the Union) is a labor organization within section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §152(5), and is an employee organization within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §1002(4). Plaintiffs the Painters Council No. 2 Pension Trust (Pension Trust); Painters District Council No. 2 Welfare Trust (Welfare Trust); Painters District Council No. 2 Vacation Trust (Vacation Trust); Painters District Council No. 2 Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Trust (Apprenticeship Trust), collectively known as the PDC Trusts, are all employee benefit plans under Section 3(3) and 502 (d)(1) of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(3), 1132(d)(1).

         Defendant RDB Universal Services, LLC, (RDB) is a general contracting company licensed to do business in Missouri, and Defendants Relder Berry and Deloris Berry, collectively the Berrys, are husband and wife, associated with RDB, with Deloris serving as President of RDB Universal.

         Plaintiffs have filed this motion asking the Court to reconsider portions of its Memorandum and Order, granting and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 69]. Plaintiffs argue the Court should reconsider or clarify four portions of the Memorandum and Order on summary judgment: (1) Plaintiffs contend the Court erred, after finding RDB was bound by the 2010 collective bargaining agreement (“2010 CBA”), failed to assess damages and concluded whether RDB was bound by the 2013 collective bargaining agreement (“2013 CBA”) is a material fact in dispute; (2) Plaintiffs ask the Court reconsider its decision to deny Plaintiffs request for a new audit, after the Court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ authority to do so; (3) Plaintiffs ask for clarification with respect to Defendants’ claims of tortious interference of contract or business expectancy and breach of contract, because of conflicting language in the memorandum and order; and (4) finally, Plaintiffs contend the Court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to RDB’s counterclaim of money had and received, since the Union never received any overpayments or mistaken contributions. [ECF No. 71].

         Defendants respond (1) which CBA applies is a material issue, Plaintiffs’ reservation of a trial argument the 2013 CBA is in effect, concedes the importance of this issue, the Court mentioned there were multiple material issues preventing summary judgment, specifically, the audit, and finally, this is a prohibited new argument; (2) Plaintiffs’ summary judgment pleadings do not ask for a new audit, and therefore the Court has nothing to reconsider since a renewed audit was not requested; (3) Defendants agree with Plaintiffs clarification is required on Defendants’ counterclaim of tortious interference of contract or business expectancy; and (4) Plaintiffs present prohibited new arguments in respect to Defendants’ counterclaim of money had and received, and the Court carefully considered Defendants had pled a claim of federal restitution. [ECF No. 77].

         Plaintiffs reply: (1) Defendants did not address their allegations of the immateriality of the CBA and only focused on their reservation of arguments for trial, and the Court did not decide the materiality of the CBA on the basis of contested audit damages; (2) a renewed audit was requested in the complaint, a renewed audit request was in the memorandum in support of summary judgment, the Court acknowledged Plaintiffs’ request for a renewed audit in the memorandum and order on summary judgment, and recent cases from the Court have allowed similar renewed audits; (3) Defendants have agreed with Plaintiffs clarification is required on Defendants’ counterclaim of tortious interference of contract or business expectancy; and (4) Defendants do not respond to their argument Plaintiffs never received any overpayments from Defendants, and this is not a new argument, since Plaintiffs previously argued Defendants have admitted Plaintiffs never received overpayments. [ECF No. 78].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to revise any order, before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the parties’ rights and liabilities. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). A motion to reconsider may also be brought under Rule 54(b) to correct any “clearly or manifestly erroneous findings of facts or conclusions of law.” Prosser v. Nagaldinne, No. 4:09CV2117 JAR, 2013 WL 308770 at *1 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 25, 2013) (quoting Jones v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 551 F.Supp.2d 848, 854 (S.D.Iowa 2008)). “The exact standard applicable to the granting of a motion under Rule 54(b) is not clear, though it is typically held to be less exacting than would be a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which is in turn less exacting than the standards enunciated in Federal Rule of Civil procedure 60(b)”. Wells' Dairy, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois, 336 F.Supp.2d 906, 909 (N.D.Iowa 2004).

         “A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to identify facts or legal arguments that could have been, but were not, raised at the time the relevant motion was pending.” Julianello v. K-V Pharm. Co., 791 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2015). “District courts have substantial discretion in ruling on motions for reconsideration. However, in general, ‘[m]otions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Boswell v. Panera Bread Co., No. 4:14-CV-01833-AGF, 2016 WL 1392066, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 8, 2016) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988)).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider four portions of the Memorandum and Order on summary judgment. Plaintiffs contend the Court’s decision in failing to assess damages after determining RDB was bound by the 2010 CBA was in error, because the CBA to which RDB is bound does not change RDB’s liability. Second, Plaintiffs ask for clarification in determining if they are entitled to conduct a renewed audit of RDB’s books and records, after the Court acknowledge the authority of Plaintiffs to do so, but denied any other right to relief. Third, Plaintiffs ask for clarification on the Court’s ruling with respect to Defendants’ claims of tortious interference of contract or business expectancy and breach of contract, because of conflicting language in the memorandum versus the order. Finally, Plaintiffs contend, since they never received any overpayments or mistaken contributions, the Court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to RDB’s counterclaim of money had and received.

         A. Materiality of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.