United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF KANSAS CITY PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
PRECISE CONCRETE, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
is Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. #27.
For the following reasons, the motion is granted, and summary
judgment is entered in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Plaintiffs bring this action against
Defendant Precise Concrete, LLC. Doc. #9. Plaintiffs allege
Precise Concrete violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (“ERISA”) by failing to pay employee
benefit funds due for employees covered by collective
October 1, 2014, Precise Concrete entered into a labor
agreement stipulation binding Precise Concrete to the
collective bargaining agreements between the Builders
Association of Missouri and Carpenters District Council of
Greater St. Louis. Doc. #28, at 6; Doc. #33, at 2; Doc.
#33-3. Precise Concrete was required to pay employee benefit
plan contributions on behalf of its carpenter employees to
Plaintiff Funds from October 1, 2014, through April 19, 2016.
Doc. #28, at 6; Doc. #33, at 2-3; Doc. #33-4. Precise
Concrete’s carpenter employees performed work covered
by the collective bargaining agreement during that period of
time, but Precise Concrete failed to make employee benefit
contributions on behalf of its carpenter employees. Doc. #28,
at 6-7; Doc. #33, at 3.
McShane Corporation (“WMC”) conducted an audit of
the unpaid contributions, union dues, liquidated damages, and
interest due for the period of October 1, 2014, through May
31, 2015. Doc. #28, at 9; Doc. #32. WMC found Precise
Concrete failed to pay fringe benefit contributions in the
amount of $25,109.10, and failed to pay union dues in the
amount of $2,084.20. Doc. #28, at 10; Doc. #32, at 1-2; Doc.
#31-1; Doc. #32-2. Construction Benefits Audit Corporation
(“CBAC”) performed four subsequent audits
covering contributions owed by Precise Concrete on the Oak
Point Redevelopment Project, Rose Hill Town Homes,
Centerville Cottage, and St. Michael’s Housing. Doc.
#28, at 9-10; Doc. #29. CBAC found Precise Concrete failed to
pay fringe benefit contributions in the amount of $27,107.89,
and failed to pay union dues in the amount of $2,244.79. Doc.
#28, at 10-12; Doc. #29, at 1-2; Doc. #29-1; Doc. #29-2; Doc.
#29-3; Doc. #29-4; Doc. #29-5.
to the agreement, Precise Concrete also agreed to pay
liquidated damages for unpaid contributions as well as costs
associated with any audits, interest, attorneys’ fees,
and costs. Doc. #28, at 12; Doc. #30, at 3; Doc. #32-3; Doc.
#33, at 3; Doc. #33-2, at 13-14. According to the audit
conducted by WMC, Precise Concrete is liable to Plaintiff
Funds for liquidated damages in the amount of $465.40, and
interest in the amount of $191.77. Doc. #28, at 12-13; Doc.
#32, at 2. Plaintiff Funds incurred $4,295.00 in audit costs.
Doc. #28, at 13-14; Doc. #29, at 2; Doc. #32, at 3. And
Plaintiff Funds also incurred $8,287.88 in attorneys’
fees and costs. Doc. #28, at 14; Doc. #31; Doc. #31-1.
December 28, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking summary judgment in its favor on all
claims. Doc. #27. Defendant failed to timely respond to the
motion. On January 20, 2017, the Court issued an order
directing Precise Concrete to show cause as to why
Plaintiffs’ motion should not be granted. Doc. #34. The
Court also informed Precise Concrete that if it failed to
respond to Plaintiffs’ statements of fact, those facts
would be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment.
Id. Precise Concrete’s response was due by
February 17, 2017. Id. To date, Precise Concrete has
not submitted anything in response to the Court’s
Order. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is ripe
moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only
if there is a showing that “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” Williams v. City
of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114, 115 (8th Cir. 1986).
“[W]hile the materiality determination rests on the
substantive law, it is the substantive law’s
identification of which facts are critical and which facts
are irrelevant that governs.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus,
“[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Wierman v.
Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir.
2011) (quotation omitted). In applying this standard, the
Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all
inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 588-89 (1986); Tyler v. Harper, 744
F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir. 1984). However, a party opposing a
motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of the…pleadings, but…by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Precise Concrete failed to controvert the facts set forth by
Plaintiffs in support of Plaintiffs’ summary judgment
motion, the facts supported by the record are deemed admitted
for the purpose of summary judgment. L.R. 56.1. When a party
fails to address another party’s assertion of fact in a
motion for summary judgment, the Court may “grant
summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials
– including the facts undisputed – show that the
movant is entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Funds are trust funds established pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§ 302, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
(“ERISA”). They bring a cause of action pursuant
to ERISA for enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement
requiring contribution to Plaintiff Funds pursuant to ERISA.
29 U.S.C. § 1145.
forth in section I, it is undisputed that Precise Concrete
was bound by the collective bargaining agreements. Precise
Concrete agreed to pay and contribute to Plaintiff Funds
various sums per hour for each carpenter employee covered by
and subject to the agreement between October 1, 2014, and
April 19, 2016. Precise Concrete employed carpenter employees
between October 1, 2014, and April 19, 2016, but failed to
pay employee fringe benefit ...