Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fox Valley Laborers' Health and Welfare Fund v. Hugh Henry Construction Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

August 22, 2016

FOX VALLEY LABORERS’ HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, THE FOX VALLEY LABORERS’ PENSION FUND, and PAT SHALES, Administrator of the Funds, Plaintiffs,
v.
HUGH HENRY CONSTRUCTION INC., an Illinois corporation, and TRACEY BIESTERFELDT, individually, Defendants.

          Elizabeth L. Rowe One of Plaintiffs' Attorneys J. Peter Dowd (#0667552) Josiah A. Groff (#6289628) Elizabeth L. Rowe (#6316967) DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH

          PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A FINAL JUDGMENT ON COUNT IV OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) AND 56

          Shah Judge

         Plaintiffs FOX VALLEY LABORERS’ HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND (“Welfare Fund”), THE FOX VALLEY LABORERS’ PENSION FUND (“Pension Fund”) (collectively, “the Funds”), and PAT SHALES, administrator of the Funds, through their attorneys, Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich, hereby respectfully move the Court for entry of partial summary judgment against Defendant Hugh Henry Construction Inc. (“Defendant Company”) on Count IV of the Complaint, and for a finding that the judgment is a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs state:

         1. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 13, 2016. Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. The Complaint contained the following ten counts (of which Count IV is at issue in this motion):

(a) Count I seeks payment of delinquencies from Defendant Company as found in an audit for the period of November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2015, for a total principal amount of $130, 576.33. Count I is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) Section 515, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, and the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) Section 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, giving this Court jurisdiction over the case and making venue proper pursuant to ERISA Sections 502(e)(1) and (2), and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and (2), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), and Section 101 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2).
(b) Count II seeks a finding that Defendant Company and Defendant Tracey Biesterfeldt (“Biesterfeldt”) violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by making payroll deductions from employees’ wages for union dues and/or other union fee obligations for the period of November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2015, and failing to remit those amounts to the Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity (“District Council”). The District Council has authorized the Funds to serve as collection agents on its behalf for purposes of collecting amounts due to it under the Funds’ Complaint. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Count II, which alleges a state law claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and venue is properly vested in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
(c) Count III seeks a finding of conversion against Defendant Company and Biesterfeldt for making payroll deductions from employees’ wages for union dues and/or other union fee obligations for the period of November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2015, and failing to remit those amounts to the District Council, thereby appropriating that money for their own use and benefit. Jurisdiction over Count III is based on 28 I.S.C. § 1367 and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
(d) Count IV seeks payment of delinquencies from Defendant Company for unpaid contributions owed to the Funds for the month of March 2016, and is brought pursuant to identical provisions of the LMRA and ERISA as alleged in Count I.
(e) Count V is identical to Count II but concerns wage deductions made in March 2016.
(f) Count VI is identical to Count III but concerns wage deductions made in March 2016.
(g) Count VII is identical to Count IV but concerns unpaid contributions owed for the months of May 2016 to the present.
(h) Count VIII is identical to Count V but concerns wage deductions made from May 2016 to the present.
(i) Count IX is identical to Count VI but concerns wage deductions made from May 2016 to the present.
(j) Count X seeks to pierce Defendant Company’s corporate veil and enforce Defendant Company’s liability against Biesterfeldt as Defendant Company’s sole and/or majority shareholder. Jurisdiction over Count X is based on 28 I.S.C. § ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.