Citrin v. Erikson

• Decision Date: 14 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95 Civ. 9004 (DNE).,95 Civ. 9004 (DNE).
• Citation: 918 F. Supp. 792
• Parties: Yale CITRIN, in his capacity as an Association Trustee for the Joint Apprentice and Training Program of the Elevator Industry, and on behalf of all of the Association Trustees, Petitioners, v. Christopher ERIKSON and James O'Hara, as Union Trustees of the Joint Apprentice and Training Program of the Elevator Industry, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

918 F. Supp. 792

Yale CITRIN, in his capacity as an Association Trustee for the Joint Apprentice and Training Program of the Elevator Industry, and on behalf of all of the Association Trustees, Petitioners, v. Christopher ERIKSON and James O'Hara, as Union Trustees of the Joint Apprentice and Training Program of the Elevator Industry, Respondents.

No. 95 Civ. 9004 (DNE).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 14, 1996.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael J. DiMattia, Ross & Hardies, New York City, for Yale Citrin.

OPINION & ORDER

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

The instant action arose under the provisions of section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and section 302(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 186(c). Yale Citrin and the Association Trustees of the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Program ("JATP") of the Elevator Industry ("Petitioners") moved this Court both to appoint an impartial umpire to resolve a dispute between Petitioners and the Union Trustees of the JATP ("Respondents") concerning the administration of the JATP, and to award attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. In an Opinion & Order dated January 10, 1996, this Court granted Petitioners' motion to appoint an impartial umpire, but deferred both appointing an impartial umpire, and ruling on the issue of attorneys' fees pending supplementary submissions from the parties on each issue. Citrin v. Erikson, 911 F.Supp. 673, 687-89 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ("January 1996 Opinion"). The instant Opinion & Order resolves the issues left open in this Court's January 1996 Opinion.

Petitioners ask this Court: (1) to award attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; (2) to order that the JATP Trust Fund be used to reimburse Petitioners' attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; and (3) to select an impartial umpire to resolve the parties' dispute from the list of impartial umpires submitted by the parties. In response, Respondents argue that: (1) this Court should not award Petitioners attorneys' fees, costs, or disbursements; (2) if this Court does award Petitioners attorneys' fees, these fees should be paid from the JATP Trust Fund; and (3) this Court should select an impartial umpire to resolve the parties' dispute from the list of impartial umpires submitted by the parties. For the reasons discussed below, this Court grants both Petitioners' motion for attorneys' fees and the parties' request that Petitioners' attorneys' fees be paid from the JATP Trust Fund, and this Court appoints an impartial umpire from the lists submitted respectively by the parties.

BACKGROUND

The petition underlying the motions currently pending before this Court concerned the administration of a trust fund established pursuant to the LMRA and ERISA. Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 675. Sections 302(c)(5)-(6) of the LMRA authorize employee benefit trust funds for the purpose of "defraying costs of apprenticeship or other training programs." 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)-(6); Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 679. ERISA defines an "employee welfare benefit plan" as any plan, fund, or program established or maintained by an employer, an employee organization, or by both, for the purpose of providing its participants or their beneficiaries with "apprenticeship or other training programs, ... or ... any benefit described in section 302(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act...." 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)(A)-(B); see Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 679.

The JATP trust fund was created and is jointly administered by the Elevator Industries Association, Inc. ("the Association") and Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("the Union"). Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 675-76. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the Union, in 1976, the parties entered into a trust agreement that created the Joint Apprenticeship Training Program. Id. at 676; see (Trust Agreement Creating the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Program for the Elevator Industry ("JATP Trust Agreement")). As set forth in the JATP Trust Agreement, the JATP established an apprentice school

for the benefit of the elevator industry and to help meet its staffing needs by providing and maintaining training and/or retraining programs for the benefit of Employees, or persons who wish to become Employees, ... and to devise and implement such programs as may be necessary from time to time to fulfill these objectives.

Id. (quoting JATP Trust Agreement Art. III, ¶ 3.1).

Approximately one year before Petitioners applied to this Court, a dispute arose between the Association Trustees and the Union Trustees over the commencement of a new JATP apprenticeship class. Id. The Association Trustees attempted to commence a new first-year JATP apprenticeship class according to the terms of the JATP Trust Agreement. The Union Trustees refused to give their consent to the commencement of a new JATP class "unless and until a long-standing provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union Trustees and the Association Trustees was changed." Id. Petitioners' made several attempts to break the Trustees' deadlock on their own, but Respondents continued to withhold both their consent to the commencement of a new JATP class and their cooperation in resolving the deadlock concerning the new JATP class. Id. at 676-77.

In an effort to resolve this dilemma, Petitioners applied to this Court to appoint an impartial umpire to break the Trustees' deadlock, pursuant to LMRA section 302(c), 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B). Id. at 677. Section 302(c) of the LMRA mandates the selection of an impartial umpire in the case of an unresolvable disagreement among trustees of a benefit fund, and provides that, in the event the trustees are unable to agree upon an umpire, they may petition the district court to appoint one for them. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B); Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 680. Petitioners asserted that this Court had jurisdiction over their petition under section 302 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c), section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and 28 U.S.C. § 1337. Citrin, 911 F.Supp. at 677. Petitioners claimed that they had satisfied each of the prerequisites for petitioning a district court under LMRA section 302(c). Id. at 680. Specifically Petitioners argued that their dispute constituted a genuine deadlock on an issue of the JATP Trust administration, that no agreed neutral person was available to break the impasse, and that the parties had failed to agree on an impartial umpire. Id. Respondents opposed the petition, and maintained that Petitioners had failed to satisfy the prerequisites for petitioning this Court pursuant to LMRA section 302(c). Id. at 677-78.

After reviewing the parties' respective claims, the documents controlling the parties' relationship, and the JATP Trust Agreement, this Court ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 687-88. This Court found that it had jurisdiction over the petition under all three statutes that Petitioners had advanced in support of their petition. Id. at 679-80. This Court further found that Petitioners had satisfied the prerequisites for petitioning a federal court for an impartial umpire pursuant to LMRA section 302(c), id. at 687-88, and that Respondents arguments to the contrary were meritless. Id. at 683, 687-88. Consequently, this Court ruled in favor of Petitioners and ordered that the parties "each shall submit to this Court in writing the names of ten (10) persons proposed as umpire, indicating by number their priorities of choice." Id. at 688. This Court further ordered that "each person on each list must be eligible to serve as a trustee according to the criteria and the restrictions set forth in Article VII, paragraph 7.2 of the JATP Trust Agreement and Article VIII of the JATP Trust Agreement." Id. In addition, this Court stated that

although this Court will examine the parties' respective submissions, this Court retains complete authority and discretion to appoint an umpire, and this Court is in no way bound to select an impartial umpire from these submissions. This Court has permitted the parties to submit lists of names merely as a courtesy to the parties and as a means to resolve this dispute quickly. Ultimately, however, the selection of an appropriate impartial umpire is a matter solely left to this Court's discretion.

Id. The Court also ordered that "the JATP Trustees shall apply the JATP Trust Fund to pay for the reasonable costs and expenses of retaining the impartial umpire in accordance with Article III, paragraph 3.3 of the Trust Agreement." Id.

Regarding petitioner's motion for attorneys' fees, this Court found that "although section 302 of the LMRA does not authorize a court to award attorneys' fees in an action based solely on its authority, section 502(g) of ERISA does." Id. at 688 (citations omitted). Because Petitioners had properly invoked this Court's jurisdiction under ERISA section 502, this Court held that Petitioners were eligible to request attorneys' fees from this Court. Id. at 688-89. This Court then noted that the Second Circuit has set forth five factors that courts must weigh when considering an application for attorneys' fees. Id. This Court found, however, that it "lacked sufficient factual information to make a specific finding regarding each of the five elements that this Court must consider in order to resolve the issue of attorneys' fees," and deferred consideration of the issue pending the parties' respective submissions of supplemental memoranda of law addressing this topic. Id.

DISCUSSION

Since this Court issued its January 1996 Opinion, Petitioners and Respondents have timely submitted both their respective lists of persons proposed as umpire and their respective memoranda of law regarding the issue of attorneys' fees. This Court in turn will address each issue.

I. Appointment of an Impartial Umpire

In accordance...