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.

Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of v. H.P. Kanady

August 2, 2012

TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
H.P. KANADY, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

Memorandum Order

This matter comes before the Court on an amended motion [Dkt. Entry No. 7] of Plaintiff Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund ("Plaintiff") seeking entry of default judgment against Defendant H.P. Kanady, Inc. ("Defendant"). [Dkt. Entry No. 7.] The Court has considered Plaintiff's submissions and notes that Defendant has not responded to the motion. For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted and denied in part.

I. Background

Because Defendant has not responded all facts are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. Entry No. 1] and the certification attached to the Amended Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. Entry No. 7.] Plaintiff is a "multi-employer benefit fund" (hereinafter "Fund") as within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1974 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. §186(c)(5), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(3) and 1002(37). (Compl. at ¶ 4.) The Fund receives and administers contributions from contractors. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The contractors are bound by collective bargaining agreements with local unions affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters including Local 331 ("Union"). (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant is a New Jersey corporation that employs workers represented by the Union (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Those workers represented by the Union also participate and benefit from the Fund. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with the Union, Defendant is required to make timely, monthly contributions to the Fund for each full hour worked by each employee. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8; Ex. A, Article 17 §§ 1-5.) The relevant portions of the CBA are attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. The CBA also provides that: (1) liquidated damages in the amount of 10 percent will be imposed on late payments (Comp. at ¶ 9); (2) Defendant is to submit monthly employee reports to the Fund (Id. at ¶ 14); and (3) Defendant is required to make its employee records, including payroll records, available for inspection by the Fund's representatives, but only "after written notice of not less than three business days" is given to it. (Id. at ¶ 15; Ex. A, Article 17 § 9.)

Defendant failed to submit the mandatory reports and failed to make its contributions to the Fund for "at least the months of October, November, and December 2011." (Compl. at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 9, 2012. [Dkt. Entry No. 1.] Count I of the complaint alleges that Defendant's "failure to submit reports and to pay contributions and liquidated damages to the Fund constitutes a breach of" contract. (Compl. at ¶ 18.) Count II alleges that Defendant's failure to make contributions to the Fund constitutes a violation of ERISA. (Compl. at ¶ 21.)Plaintiff seeks to recover: (a) injunctive relief, in the form of orders directing Defendant that within thirty days he must (1) submit the overdue contribution reports, and (2) provide Plaintiff's auditors with access to its books and records for the purposes of determining the total amount of contributions owed by Defendant to the Fund (Pl.'s Am. Mot. Default J. at ¶ 15; Compl. at ¶ 22); (b) the amount of (1) outstanding unpaid contributions, (2) accrued interest on the unpaid contributions collectible under § 1132(g)(2)(B) of ERISA, (3) liquidated damages receivable under § 1132(g)(2)(C) of ERISA, and (4) reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit pursuant to § 1132(g)(2)(D) of ERISA. (Compl. at ¶ 22; Pl.'s Am. Mot. Def. J. at ¶ 3.)

II. Jurisdiction

"Before entering default judgment against a party that has not filed a responsive pleading, 'the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.'" Trs. of Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int'l Union Welfare Fund v. Mazi Enter., CIV.A. 10-5985, 2011 WL 1205655 at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2011)(quoting Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1203 (10th Cir. 1986)).

The Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ERISA claim because the Fund lacks standing to sue for delinquent contributions on its own behalf pursuant to the act. While ERISA states that benefit plans can "sue or be sued as entities," 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)(1), the act only empowers a "participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary" with the ability to bring a civil action. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); See Dept. ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that jurisdiction over a suit between two ERISA plans cannot be predicated on 29 U.S.C § 1132(a)(1)(B)); also see Pressroom Unions-Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Continental Assur. Co., 700 F.2d 889, 893 (2d Cir. 1983) (declining to find that ERISA plan itself had standing to sue under § 1132(a) because it is not a plan participant, beneficiary or fiduciary); Int'l Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers Local 42 v. S. Jersey Insulation Services, No. 05-3143 RMB, 2007 WL 276137 at, *2-3 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2007) (finding that the language of § 1132(d)(1) does not authorize suits by benefit plans and that they lack standing to sue for ERISA violations)(internal citations omitted).

While a benefit plan cannot be a participant or a beneficiary, it is possible that it can fall within the meaning of a fiduciary under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §1002(21); See Forys v. United Food & Commercial Worker's Int'l Union, 829 F.2d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that a person is a fiduciary for purposes of ERISA to the extent that he or she exercises discretion over the management of plan assets, renders investment advice for a fee or exercises discretionary control over the administration of a plan) (internal quotations omitted); Also see Int'l Ass'n, 2007 WL 276137 at, *2-3 (holding that a union does not have standing pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and 29 U.S.C. § 1145 where it has not set forth facts sufficient to show it is a fiduciary). Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel will be given time to submit a supplemental document regarding the standing of the Fund. The Court will only evaluate the legitimacy of this cause of action once Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrates that it has standing to sue for the requested relief under ERISA.

The Court, however, does have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's breach of contract claim pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under the LMRA. The LMRA provides that contractual disputes "between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties." 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is a contractual dispute between the defendant, an employer, and the Union, a labor organization. Thus, the suit for unpaid contributions falls under the LMRA, 29 U.S.C § 185, giving the plaintiff a right to pursue an "action that is essentially one for breach of contract." Int'l Ass'n, 2007 WL 276137 at, *3 . Unlike ERISA, the LMRA does not limit parties who may bring suit so long as the object of the suit is the enforcement of rights guaranteed by an agreement between an employer and a labor organization. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the parties' CBA by failing to make contributions during October, November, and December, the LMRA is applicable (Compl. at ¶ 16.) The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it is a New Jersey corporation located in Williamstown, New Jersey (Id. at 2.)

III. Default Judgment Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the entry of default ...


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.