United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
LOCAL 207 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE IRONWORKERS PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
PENN-OHIO IRON WORKS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NOS.
22 & 23]
Y. Pearson, United States District Judge.
parties in this case have agreed to treat briefs they have
styled as briefs contemplated by Wilkins v. Batpist
Healthcare Systems as cross-motions for summary judgment
based on the limited record before the court. ECF No. 28.
reviewed the opening brief of Plaintiffs (ECF No. 22), the
reply brief of Defendants (ECF No. 23), and Plaintiffs'
reply in support (ECF No. 25), the Court grants summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
Local 207 Board of Trustees of the Ironworkers Pension Fund
and Local 207 Board of Trustees of the Ironworkers Annuity
filed a two-count complaint against Defendants Penn-Ohio Iron
Works, LLC, Christopher Bell, and Isaac Fields. ECF No. 1.
Plaintiffs are responsible for collections for the
Ironworkers 207 Pension Fund and Annuity Plan, both of which
receive fringe benefit contributions from employers.
Id. at PageID #: 2. Defendant Penn- Ohio is a
signatory to the collective bargaining agreement for Iron
Workers Local 207. ECF No. 1-1. An excerpted version of the
collective bargaining agreement states that “[f]ull
payment of all fringe benefits and assessments shall be made
within and not later than fifteen (15) days from the end of
the month during which the employment occurred.” ECF
No. 1-2 at PageID #: 11.
allege that Penn-Ohio has failed to make fringe benefit
contributions from October 2015 to the filing of the
Complaint. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 6.
18, 2015, Plaintiffs and Penn-Ohio entered into a consent
judgment,  whereby Penn-Ohio agreed to pay Plaintiffs
for unpaid fringe benefits contributions, late fees,
interest, and attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 1-3.
Additionally, Penn-Ohio gave a promissory note for $40,
639.15, and both Bell and Fields signed guaranties on the
note. Id. at PageID #: 16-22. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants have failed to make the payments required pursuant
to the promissory note. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4-5.
Plaintiffs allege that the unpaid remaining balance on the
promissory note was $41, 855.55 at the time of filing, based
on an unpaid balance of $36, 665.55, plus liquidated damages,
attorneys fees, and interest of $5, 190.00. Id. at
PageID #: 6.
Standard of Review
judgment is appropriately granted when the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
affidavits show “that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also
Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005).
The moving party is not required to file affidavits or other
similar materials negating a claim on which its opponent
bears the burden of proof, so long as the movant relies upon
the absence of the essential element in the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). The moving party must “show that the non-moving
party has failed to establish an essential element of his
case upon which he would bear the ultimate burden of proof at
trial.” Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees.,
980 F.2d 399, 403 (6th Cir. 1992).
the movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence
of a genuine dispute. An opposing party may not simply rely
on its pleadings; rather, it must “produce evidence
that results in a conflict of material fact to be resolved by
a jury.” Cox v. Ky. Dep't. of Transp., 53
F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995). The non-moving party must, to
defeat the motion, “show that there is doubt as to
[whether] the material facts and that the record, taken as a
whole, does not lead to a judgment for the movant.”
Guarino, 980 F.2d at 403. In reviewing a motion for
summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party when deciding
whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress &
Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970).
United States Supreme Court, in deciding Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), stated that in
order for a motion for summary judgment to be granted, there
must be no genuine issue of material fact. Id. at
248. The existence of some mere factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment. Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380 (2007). A fact is “material” only
if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit. In
determining whether a factual issue is “genuine,
” the court must decide whether the evidence is such
that reasonable jurors could find that the non-moving party
is entitled to a verdict. Id. Summary judgment
“will not lie . . . if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Id. To withstand summary judgment, the
non-movant must show sufficient evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact. Klepper v. First Am. Bank,
916 F.2d 337, 342 (6th Cir. 1990). The existence of a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving
party's position ordinarily will not be sufficient to
defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id.
claims focus on two issues: (1) payment of fringe benefits
under the collective bargaining agreement; and (2) payment of
money due under the promissory note. The Court will address
each issue in turn.