The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 of James T. Sullivan ("Sullivan"), as trustee for Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130, U.A. ("Pension Fund"); Plumbers' Welfare Fund, Local 130, U.A. ("Welfare Fund"); the Trust Fund for Apprentice and Journeyman Education and Training, Local 130, U.A. ("Apprentice Fund") (collectively"Funds"); Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local 130, U.A. ("Union"); Group Legal Services Plan Fund ("Legal Fund"); and the Plumbing Council of Chicagoland ("Plumbing Council") (collectively "Plaintiffs"). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted.
Plaintiffs include the Union, which represents plumbers in Cook County, Illinois, and the Funds, a collection of multi-employer funds that receive contributions from employers for the benefit of their employees, as provided under collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") between employers and the Union. They bring this lawsuit to enforce their rights under a CBA for contributions and damages and an arbitration award against plumbing companies Tag Plumbing, Inc. ("Tag"), based in Skokie, Illinois, and Blue Line Plumbing Co. ("Blue Line"), based in Chicago, Illinois.
The Union and Tag have been subject to a CBA since at least October 2003. One such CBA was signed on June 16, 2005. Under the CBA, Tag was obligated to make monthly contributions to the Funds based on the total hours of work performed that the CBA describes as falling under the Union's jurisdiction ("covered work"), whether Union members performed the work or not. Tag was also required to submit monthly reports with a detailed accounting of the total hours worked by its employees and its monthly contributions due to the Funds. If Tag did not timely comply with these requirements, it was bound to pay liquidated damages and interest on all contributions, as well as Plaintiffs' legal, audit and court fees spent attempting to collect past due contributions. The CBA further obliged Tag to make all of its books and records available to Plaintiffs' at Plaintiffs' request to allow for an adequate audit. Tag has not submitted a monthly report to Plaintiffs since July 2007.
Following the initiation of this suit and consistent with the Court Order of January 20, 2009, Legacy Professionals LLP ("Legacy"), Plaintiffs' auditor, reviewed Tag's and Blue Line's books and records to assess their compliance with the CBA from April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. The auditors treated Blue Line as Tag's successor, for reasons that will be made apparent momentarily. On January 15, 2010, Legacy issued its report ("Audit"). Neither Tag's nor Blue Line's records indicated the number of hours that each of its employees worked, nor the type of work that its employees performed. Tag's records showed that it employed both Union and non-Union members from November 2006 through January 2008. Blue Line's records showed that it employed Union and non-Union members from June 2008 through September 2008, but provided no information regarding the number of hours each person worked or the type of work that the individual performed. The Audit concluded that Tag and Blue Line owed contributions and other amounts to Plaintiffs totaling $275,040.17 as a result of the hours worked by these individuals. Defendants were also bound to pay an additional monthly payment of $2,944.62 after January 1, 2010 if they failed to satisfy the Audit amount by that date. Defendants have made no payments on the Audit amount.
Plaintiffs and Tag agreed under the CBA that the Joint Arbitration Board ("JAB"), a panel of arbitrators, would decide CBA-related disputes between Tag and one or all of the Plaintiffs. The JAB is vested with the authority to enforce the terms of the CBA against either Plaintiffs or Tag, and may assess fines or fashion other appropriate remedies.
On March 24, 2008, the JAB issued a Decision and Award ("Award") finding that Tag violated the CBA by failing to make contributions to Plaintiffs from October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2006. The JAB determined that Tag owed Plaintiffs $318,445.19 in delinquent contributions and fines. If Tag failed to pay the full Award amount within 30 days after decision, it had to reimburse Plaintiffs for all fees and expenses spent attempting to enforce the Award, including audit fees, attorneys' fees and court costs. The Award further required Tag to pay additional interest at the rate of $2,897.48 per month starting May 1, 2008 if it did not pay the Award amount by that date. Steven Tag, Tag's vice president and treasurer at that time, received notice of the Award on March 25, 2008. Defendants have made no payments to satisfy the Award or the accruing interest.
At some point during this lawsuit, Plaintiffs suspected that Tag and Blue Line were associated with each other such that the companies could be held liable for the other's obligations under the CBA. Steven Tag ("Steven"), a journeyman plumber, owned Tag and served as its president prior to 2005. Maggie Tag ("Maggie"), Steven's wife, became its president and sole shareholder beginning in 2005, while Steven became its treasurer and vice president. The change was made to allow Steven more time to work in the field. Tag's address was listed as Maggie and Steven's home. Throughout his time with Tag, Steven's duties included seeking out plumbing projects, performing plumbing work, obtaining proposals, purchasing materials, and balancing the company's checkbook. Although Maggie was Tag's president, her duties were limited to clerical work. She primarily focused her time and efforts on her career as a daycare center teacher.
In 2006 and 2007, Tag had five employees: Steven, Maggie, Carlton Tag ("Carlton"), a metal tradesman and apprentice plumber, Peter Kaczynski ("Peter"), an apprentice plumber, and Czeslaw Kuchiak ("Kuchiak"), a journeyman plumber. Carlton was Maggie and Steven's son, while Peter was Maggie's son and Steven's stepson. Steven and Maggie were Tag's only employees from January 1, 2008 until March 31, 2008. Tag has had no employees since that date.
Blue Line was incorporated in March 2008. Maggie made a $6,000.00 loan to Blue Line for start-up capital. She also helped to pay some of Blue Line's expenses, including workers' compensation insurance, liability insurance, and accounting fees. Steven and Carlton own the company: Steven owns 45% while Carlton owns the majority 55% share. Steven is Blue Line's secretary and its sole director. From July 2008 to June 2009, Steven calculated plumbing project proposals and performed on-site plumbing work. Blue Line relied on Steven's reputation to bring in business. Carlton is Blue Line's treasurer. Sarah Tag ("Sarah"), Carlton's wife, is Blue Line's president. Blue Line's address was listed as Sarah's and Carlton's home. In addition to Steven, Sarah, and Carlton, Blue Line employed Peter, his wife Angelique Kaczynski ("Angelique"), and non-Tag family members Adam Uzarewicz ("Uzarewicz") and Miroslaw Derus ("Derus"). As of July 2009, only Steven and Carlton worked for Blue Line.
Tag and Blue Line shared many of the same resources. They both stored plumbing materials at a small storage building co-owned by Steven, Maggie, and Peter and Angelique. Blue Line now owns three vehicles -- two Dodge Sprinters and a Volkswagen Jetta -- that were formerly owned by Tag. Blue Line also owns Steven's tools. In 2005, Tag obtained a loan of $100,000.00 from Cole Taylor Bank ("Bank"). At some point, Tag stopped making payments on the loan. Blue Line resumed those payments, making five payments in 2008, with a balance of $19,030.02 as of January 2, 2009.
On February 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint under the Earned Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1145, and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185. They alleged that Tag and Blue Line were liable for the amounts due under the Audit and the Award, as well as additional statutory damages. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion or their Statement of Material Facts Local Rule 56.1. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief, and the case is now ripe for disposition.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery materials, disclosures, and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact, such that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 632 F.3d 388, 391-92 (7th Cir. 2011). A genuine issue of material fact exists when, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Trinity Homes LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 629 F.3d 653, 656 (7th Cir. 2010). When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court construes all facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Smith v. Hope Sch., 560 F.3d 694, 699 (7th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs argue that (1) Blue Line is subject to the CBA, and (2) Tag and Blue Line are jointly and severally liable for the Audit and Award amounts. We discuss these issues in turn.
I. Blue Line's Liability Under the CBA
Plaintiffs assert that Blue Line is bound by the CBA that the Union and Tag signed, and that it is therefore liable to Plaintiffs for not complying with the CBA's contribution and reporting requirements after it ...