Painters Dist. Council No 58 v. RDB Universal Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 06 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:14CV01812 ERW |
| Parties | PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO 58, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RDB UNIVERSAL SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and (c), and Defendants' Demand for a Jury Trial.
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 (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §152(5), representing employees in an industry affecting commerce, and is an employee organization within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §1002(4). [ECF No. 49 ¶ 1]. 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 ERSIA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(3), 1132(d)(1). [ECF No. 49, ¶¶2-5].
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. [ECF No. 49, ¶5].
A. Undisputed facts for the purpose of Summary Judgment
While significant facts remain in dispute, the Court finds the following facts undisputed for the purposes of this motion. Deloris Berry, acting as an agent for RDB, signed a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the 2010 CBA) with the Union, and the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America on (PDCA) on April 15, 2013. [ECF No. 49 ¶ 6]. The 2010 CBA's initial term expired on August 31, 2013. [ECF No. 49-4 at 27]. A second collective bargaining agreement (the 2013 CBA), Plaintiffs purport is in effect between 2013-2016. [ECF No. 49 ¶ 6, No. 49-5]. The 2013 CBA is unsigned by either party, and Defendants deny being bound by it. [ECF No. 56 ¶ 6, No. 49-5]. Both CBAs require RDB to pay certain contributions, based on the number of employee work hours to be paid the PDC trusts, and to submit contribution report forms to the Union. [ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 11-12]. RDB maintained some contractual relationship with the union until at least October 30, 2015, when it notified the Union it was cancelling its contractual relationship. [ECF No. 60 ¶ D13]. While the 2010 CBA was in effect, the Union was the exclusive bargaining representative of RDB employees. [ECF No. 56 ¶ 9].
Some RDB employees performed bargaining unit work as described in the 2013 CBA. [ECF No. 56 ¶ 8]. Both CBAs required RDB to make specific contributions to PDC trusts and other union entities based on the number of hours worked by union employees. [ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 22, 23]. RDB submitted such reports up until the time of the lawsuit. [ECF No. 49 ¶ 21].
Both CBAs require RDB to pay liquidated damages and attorneys' fees in the event of a breach. [ECF Nos. 56 ¶¶ 25, 26; 49-4; 49-5]. Both CBAs also bind RDB to the PDC trust agreements. [ECF No. 56 ¶ 27]. RDB's contributions to the PDC trust funds have been late, and at times RDB was in arrears to the union. [ECF Nos. 56 ¶ 15; 56-4 ¶¶16-17].
Deloris Berry and Relder Berry, as individuals, each signed a document labeled "Guaranty of Payment of Wages, Dues Remissions, Fringe Benefit Contributions and other miscellaneous payments", around the same time Deloris Berry signed the 2010 CBA. [ECF No. 56 ¶ 29]. Deloris and Relder Berry do not have a contractual relationship with the PDC Trusts in their individual capacities. [ECF No.49 ¶ 33]. At this time Deloris and Relder Berry individually have not paid any amounts to Plaintiffs. [ECF No. 49 ¶ 31].
Plaintiffs hired Grabel, Schnieders & Hollman, PC to perform an audit of RDB's earnings records, payroll tax reports, cash disbursement records and payroll. Plaintiffs have the right to do such an audit. [ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 28, 34]. Charles Kinder, a payroll auditor with the firm, performed the audit after RDB provided documents, and Defendants were provided an opportunity to review the audit. [ECF No. 49 ¶¶ 35, 38, Kinder Affidavit ¶ 2].
RDB entered into joint check agreements with the Union, where general contractors who had hired RDB as subcontractors would pay union checkoff dues directly to the union. [ECF No. 60 ¶¶ D1, D2].1 RDB attempted to have its union employees agree to have certain amounts withdrawn from their paycheck, in order to correct double payments mistakenly made to the union employees and the PDC Trusts. [ECF No. 56 ¶ D7]. RDB stopped these attempts after Paige Lux,the business manager for the Union, demanded RDB stop its attempts at repayment. [ECF No. 56 ¶ D9].
Summary Judgment is proper only if there exists "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. of Civ. Proc. 56(c); Bores v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 530 F3d 671, 674 (8th Cir. 2008). The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment, and all facts and reasonable inferences are to be viewed in the light most-favorable to the non-moving party. Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Ry. Co. v. City of Orr, 529 F.3d 794, 797 (8th Cir. 2008). "Although the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact, 'the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere denials or allegations, but must instead set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.'" Burchett v. Target Corp., 340 F.3d 510, 516 (8th Cir. 2003) quoting Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir.1998).
Material facts are determined by substantive law, and factual disputes which are irrelevant or collateral do not preclude Summary Judgement. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is a genuine issue, where the evidence is such a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. at 248.
Plaintiffs move for Summary Judgment on all claims, including Defendants' counterclaims. Plaintiffs' have alleged claims for damages against RDB Universal, Relder Berry, and Deloris Berry for damages resulting from a failure to pay unpaid fringe benefit contributions, union dues, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants counterclaim for alleged doublepayments and make state law claims of money had and received, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy.
Plaintiffs move for Summary Judgment on their claim, and argue summary judgment is appropriate because: RDB is liable to the Plaintiffs on one of multiple theories of liability; Deloris Berry and Relder Berry are personally liable through a guaranty agreement; Plaintiffs are entitled to Summary Judgment for a certain amount of principal damages; Plaintiffs should be allowed to submit a subsequent memorandum regarding other damages, such as attorneys' fees; and finally, Plaintiffs should be allowed to submit a subsequent memorandum on additional damages discovered in subsequent audits. [ECF No. 50 at 4-10]. Defendants respond any damages are inaccurate and unsubstantiated; there are issues relating to the execution and enforceability of the CBAs; and Deloris Berry and Relder Berry do not have personal liability. [ECF No. 57 at 2-13].
Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to Summary Judgment on RDB's liability in three separate ways. First, Plaintiffs argue RDB is liable because it is bound to the CBA, which incorporates the PDC trusts. [ECF No. 50 at 4-5]. Second, Plaintiffs contend RDB is liable for principal damages to the PDC trusts through ERISA, and to the Union under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). [ECF No. 50 at 5-6]. Third, Plaintiffs assert RDB is liable for liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs on the principal obligation as applied to both the Union's claim and the PDC Trusts' claim. [ECF No. 50 at 6-8]. In respect to RDB's liability, Defendants first argue the damages alleged are inaccurate and unsubstantiated, and seek to organize the damages into audit amounts, post-audit amounts, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and adamage summary. Defendants also argue the 2013 CBA is not binding, as issues exist to the execution, existence and enforceability of that agreement. Plaintiffs respond to these arguments by further asserting: RDB's liability to the PDC trusts and the Union are established as a matter of law; and there is no material dispute for liability under the 2013 CBA.
Plaintiffs begin their claims by arguing RDB is liable to Plaintiffs because RDB is bound by a CBA. Plaintiffs allege the Union and RDB negotiated the 2013 CBA, and although the 2013 CBA is unsigned, RDB has through their conduct and statements adopted the 2013 CBA. [ECF No. 50 at 4-5]. Alternatively, Plaintiffs plead, even if RDB has not accepted the 2013 CBA, it is still bound through the 2010 CBA through an evergreen clause present in the 2010 CBA. [ECF No. 61 at 3-6]. Defendants in their response argue, RDB has not substantially complied with the 2013 CBA, and as such has not accepted this agreement through their conduct; the 2013 CBA is void because RDB, as an employer, may not contribute to a pension plan without a...
To continue reading
Request your trial