United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
TRUSTEES OF THE OREGON-WASHINGTON CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
CASCADE STRUCTURES LLC, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YIM YOU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters
(“Union”) and the trustees of various
employer-related trust funds, have filed suit against
defendant Cascade Structures LLC (“Cascade”)
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001-1461, to collect
unpaid fringe benefit contributions and union dues, and
associated liquidated damages, interest and attorney's
fees. First Am. Compl., ECF #10. Plaintiffs have
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Cascade has not
filed a response. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion should be granted.
FRCP 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” The party moving for summary judgment
bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of
the basis for the motion and identifying portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a
triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party
does so, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the
pleadings” and “designate ‘specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
Id. at 324 (citingFRCP 56(e)).
determining what facts are material, the court considers the
underlying substantive law regarding the claims. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Otherwise
stated, only disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit preclude the entry of summary judgment.
Id. A dispute about a material fact is genuine if
there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return
a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248-49. A
“scintilla of evidence” or “evidence that
is merely colorable or not significantly probative” is
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th
court “does not weigh the evidence or determine the
truth of the matter, but only determines whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Balint v. Carson City,
Nev., 180 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999).
“Reasonable doubts as to the existence of material
factual issue are resolved against the moving parties and
inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.” Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134.
factual background of this case is outlined in the First
Amended Complaint (ECF #10) and the Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF #28). In short, Cascade was bound by the Master
Labor Agreement to pay union dues to the Union and fringe
benefit contributions to the trust funds on behalf of certain
employees. Johnson Decl. ¶ 8 (Ex. B).
ERISA, Cascade is required to make such contributions:
Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a
multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the
terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the
extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in
accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such
29 U.S.C. § 1145. Plaintiffs are entitled to bring a
civil action such as this one for Cascade's failure to
pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1132. If judgment is awarded in favor
of plaintiffs, the “court shall award”:
(A) the unpaid contributions,
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,
(C) an amount equal to the greater of- (i) interest on the