The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Sharon J. Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, two labor pension funds and their trustees, brought this action to collect delinquent payments pursuant to Sections 502 and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, 1145, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment seeking damages in the amount of $101,497.43 against defendant, for unpaid principal, liquidated damages, interest, and audit costs. Plaintiffs also request leave to file a petition for attorney's fees and costs. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion is granted. BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiffs, Laborers' Pension Fund and Welfare Funds and James S. Jorgensen ("Chicago Funds") and Fox Valley Laborers' Funds and its Trustees ("Fox Valley Funds"), (collectively, "the funds") are multiemployer benefit plans. On June 30, 2003, defendant, J&S Construction ("the company") entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("agreement") with the Construction and General Laborers District Council of Chicago and Vicinity and/or its affiliated Local ("Union"). The agreement requires the company to make contributions to the funds on behalf of its employees and to remit union dues from its employees along with monthly remittance reports. In December 2009, the company became delinquent in its monthly payments to the funds.
The funds conducted an authorized audit of the company's books for 2010. The auditors prepared separate reports for each of the funds and produced both to the company. The reports demonstrated that the company owed unpaid principal to both funds. The funds subsequently filed suit pursuant to Sections 502 and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, 1145, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185, to collect delinquent contributions and union dues from the company for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
The funds seek to recover unpaid principal amounts discovered by the audit, less contributions paid by the company since creation of the reports. The funds acknowledge and credit payments from the company, and seek only to recover the delinquent amount that remains unpaid. The funds are also seeking judgment against the company for liquidated damages, interest, and audit costs. Specifically, the Chicago Funds are seeking judgment for unpaid principal contributions of $30,911.98, liquidated damages at twenty percent, interest payments at twelve percent, and audit costs, totaling $43,676.20. The Fox Valley Funds claim judgment for unpaid principal contributions of $37,753.36, liquidated damages at twenty percent, interest at two percent compounded monthly on all delinquent contributions from the date each contribution was due until the date of receipt, and audit costs, totaling $57,821.23. Collectively, the funds request a total judgment of $101,497.43 against the company.
Before the Court is the plaintiffs' joint motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), in which the funds argue that they are entitled judgment as a matter of law based on the audit reports and subsequent reconciliations, because the company has failed to establish any evidence contradicting the validity of the funds' calculations. LEGAL STANDARD
A party is entitled to summary judgment if all of "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court construes the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 773 (7th Cir. 2005). The party who bears the burden of proof on an issue may not rest on the pleadings or mere speculation, but must affirmatively demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial to resolve. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court may not weigh the evidence or engage in fact-finding, but should simply determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Hasan v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 552 F.3d 520, 527 (7th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for unpaid principal contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and audit costs based on the audit report and subsequent record.
A. Applicability of the Agreement
Defendant opposes summary judgment asserting that "it is a question of fact whether J&S was subjected (sic) to the Collective Bargaining Agreement during the applicable time frame." (Defendant's Opposition Memorandum, p. 4). However, "a party will be successful in opposing summary judgment only when it presents 'definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion.'" Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 932 (7th Cir. 2001)(citing EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Defendant does not point to any evidence in the record in support of its argument that the agreement did not apply during the relevant time frame. In its response to plaintiffs' statement of facts, defendant admits that it executed the agreement with the Union on June 30, 2003, and does not specifically deny the validity of any portion of the agreement. In reference to the agreement, defendant states only that, "the referenced document speaks for itself when read in its entirety," when in reference to the agreement. "Saying that a document 'speaks for itself' is not a denial under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)." Henderson v. Bovis Lend Lease, 2012 WL 254247 at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Here, defendant did not deny any relevant facts. Plaintiffs' LR 56.1 statement of facts is therefore admitted in its entirety. See e.g., Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).
The Court finds it significant that Defendant did not file its own statement of additional facts. "All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C).
Defendant simply fails to present any evidence controverting plaintiffs statements regarding the applicability of the agreement. Therefore, this Court enters judgment in favor of the ...