Omni Elevator Corp. v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors
| Decision Date | 26 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-6778-CJS |
| Parties | OMNI ELEVATOR CORPORATION and CHRISTIAN GOETTING, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS and its LOCAL 27 AFFILIATE; ALAN ROTHFUSS; CRANE-HOGAN STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, INC.; TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION, HEALTH BENEFIT, EDUCATIONAL, ELEVATOR INDUSTRY WORK PRESERVATION FUNDS, ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS ANNUITY AND 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN; DELAWARE ELEVATOR, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York |
For Plaintiffs: John M. Regan, Jr., Esq. Dibble & Miller P.C.
For Defendants International Union of Elevator Constructors and its Local 27 Affiliate; Alan Rothfuss; the Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Pension, Health Benefit Educational, Elevator Industry Work Preservation Funds; and the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan Jennifer A. Clark, Esq. Blitman & King LLP
For Defendant Crane-Hogan Structural Systems, Inc.: Daniel P Adams, Esq. Adams Bell Adams, P.C.
For Defendant Delaware Elevator, Inc.: Delaware Elevator, Inc., Pro Se
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
In this action, originally commenced in state court, Omni Elevator Corporation (“Omni”) and Christian Goetting (“Goetting”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek to enjoin enforcement of three money judgments obtained against them by defendants International Union of Elevator Constructors and its Local 27 Affiliate; Alan Rothfuss; the Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Pension, Health Benefit, Educational, Elevator Industry Work Preservation Funds;[1] and the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan (collectively, “Funds/Union Defendants”), and defendant Crane-Hogan Systems, Inc. (“Crane-Hogan”). The Funds/Union Defendants timely filed a Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, asserting that the Court has original jurisdiction over this action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and that Plaintiffs' claims are completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 141 et seq. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Remand, ECF No. 4, which also seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)/ preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and an expedited hearing pursuant to W.D.N.Y. Local Rule 7.1(d). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is DENIED; the request for injunctive relief is DENIED; and the request for an expedited hearing is DENIED. In addition, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, filed by the Funds/Union Defendants and the Cross-Motion to Dismiss filed by Crane-Hogan, ECF No. 10, should be CONVERTED to motions for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
In considering the Motion to Remand, the Court accepts as true all relevant allegations in Plaintiffs' state-court Amended Complaint and construes all factual ambiguities in Plaintiffs' favor. Colacino v. Davis, No. 19 CV 9648 (VB), 2020 WL 3959209, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2020) (citing Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int'l Ltd., 422 F.Supp.2d 357, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)). The Court may also consider materials outside the Amended Complaint, “‘such as documents attached to a notice of removal[2] or a motion to remand that convey information essential to the court's jurisdictional analysis.'” Id. (quoting Romero v. DHL Express (U.S.A), Inc., No. 15-CV-4844 (JGK), 2016 WL 6584484, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016), aff'd sub nom. Romero v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 719 Fed.Appx. 80 (2d Cir. 2018)).
The National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, National Elevator Industry Educational Plan, Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund, and Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan (collectively, “the Funds”) are employee benefit plans organized under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 88 Stat. 829, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Funds are financed by payments, or “contributions, ” made by employers under the terms of their collective bargaining agreements with the International Union of Elevator Constructors (“IUEC”).
The IUEC is an unincorporated association and labor organization in an industry affecting commerce as defined in § 2(5) the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq., as amended. Alan Rothfuss (“Rothfuss”) is the business manager/financial secretary of IUEC's Rochester-based union affiliate, Local 27. Local 27 is an unincorporated labor association as defined in LMRA § 2(5). The IUEC, Local 27, and Rothfuss are collectively referred to as the “Union Defendants” in this Decision and Order.
Goetting is the owner and president of Omni, which employs workers to repair, maintain, and install elevators. Omni is the successor in interest to a domestic corporation known as The Elevator Guild (“the Guild”) formed by Goetting. Omni and the Guild at all relevant times have had a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Union. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ¶¶ 4-5, 18-19, 23-24, 26, 35-36, Exhibit “C”, ECF No. 1-1.
On two occasions, the Funds commenced actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to ERISA Sections 502(g)(2) and 515, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(A) and 1145. The Funds sued the Guild for failing to pay contributions owed under the CBA and sued Goetting, personally, for his failure to remit the monies over which he exercised fiduciary control.
The first ERISA suit was brought on October 6, 2009, following the Guild's failure to pay contributions for the period of February 2009, through May 2009. On April 12, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania awarded the Funds a default judgment against the Guild and Goetting in the amount of $25, 653.96. See Dkt. 8, Trustees of the Nat'l Elevator Industry Pension, Health, Benefit, Educational, Elevator Industry Work Preservation Funds, Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan v. The Elevator Guild, Inc., et al., No. 09-4578 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2010) (“Elevator Guild I”), Exhibit “L”, ECF No. 1-1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the judgment was registered in this Court on July 26, 2010. Plaintiffs never appealed this judgment or moved to vacate it.
On April 29, 2011, the Funds instituted another ERISA action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Guild, seeking to recover delinquent contributions due under the CBA. Default judgment was entered against the Guild for its failure to defend. The Funds also asserted an ERISA action against Goetting for breach of his fiduciary obligations. On January 23, 2013, the district court granted the Funds' unopposed motion for summary judgment against Goetting. Trustees of Nat. Elevator Indus. Pension, Health Ben., Educ., Elevator Indus. Work Pres. Funds v. Elevator Guild, LLC, No. CIV.A. 11-2870, 2013 WL 271888, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2013) (Rufe, D.J.) (“Elevator Guild II”); see also Exhibit “L”, ECF No. 1-1. Judgment in the amount of $184, 538.45 was entered against the Guild and Goetting on May 30, 2014. Plaintiffs never appealed or otherwise challenged this judgment, which was registered in this Court on July 31, 2014.
Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that on an unspecified date, Crane-Hogan obtained a judgment in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County against the Guild in the amount of “approximately $300, 000.” Am. Compl. ¶ 35, Exhibit “C”, ECF No. 1-1. Omni eventually became liable for this judgment as the Guild's successor in interest. Id. Based on the chronology of events detailed in the Amended Complaint, it appears that this judgment occurred sometime in 2016 or later. See Id. ¶¶ 34-35 ().
On September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, County of Monroe (Index No. E2019-008965). In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that on unspecified occasions between 2007 and 2018, Rothfuss “engaged in a pattern of outrageous and conscious shocking behavior designed to disrupt and destroy Plaintiffs' business and livelihood, ” Am. Compl. ¶ 2, including making false and defamatory statements about Goetting and attempting to persuade Omni's customers to cease doing business with it. See Id. ¶¶ 26-28, 33-36, 40, 43-44.
The Amended Complaint purports to assert one cause of action for equitable indemnification against the Union Defendants. Id. § IV, ¶¶ 46-50. As relief, Plaintiffs seek a “temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction enjoining further enforcement of the relevant judgment against Plaintiffs . . . during the pendency of [the] action, ” and punitive damages. Id. § V.
Crane-Hogan has executed a consent to removal. ECF No. 1-1 at 139-40. Defendant Delaware Elevator Inc. (“Delaware”) has not appeared and indeed, as the Funds/Union Defendants note it is unclear how it is connected to Plaintiffs' lawsuit and why it was named. In any event, Delaware has not consented to removal. “Although there is no express statutory requirement that all defendants either join the petition for removal or consent to such removal, there is widespread agreement among the district courts, including those in the Second Circuit, that ‘all named [defendants] over whom the state court acquired jurisdiction must join in the removal petition for removal to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial