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.

Trustees of Chicago Painters v. Madison Coating Company, Inc.

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

August 3, 2018

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS AND DECORATORS PENSION FUND, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
MADISON COATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a MADISON COATINGS INC., Defendant.

          Andrew S. Pigott One of Plainitffs' attorneys

          DONALD D. SCHWARTZ JAMES R. ANDERSON ANDREW S. PIGOTT ARNOLD & KADJAN, LLP

          Finnegan Judge

          PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

          DURKIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, DONALD D. SCHWARTZ, JAMES R. ANDERSON, ANDREW S. PIGOTT and ARNOLD AND KADJAN LLP move this Court to enter judgment against Defendant in the amounts determined in its recent fringe benefit fund contribution compliance audits. In support of their Motion, the Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. This is an action to recover delinquent fringe benefit fund contributions and other amounts owed based on breaches of Collective Bargaining Agreements, and the applicable provisions of ERISA.
2. Plaintiffs served Defendant with their Complaint seeking an order commanding compliance with an ERISA fringe benefit contributions audit on June 25, 2017.
3. More than twenty-one passed after service of process and the Defendant did not answer or otherwise plead, leading this Court to grant Plaintiffs motion for entry of a default and issuance of an audit order. Defendant successfully moved the Court to vacate the default on August 14, 2017.
4. Plaintiffs' auditor completed her review of Defendant's books and records and issued audit reports in February 2018, which Plaintiffs promptly provided to Defendant.
5. At the May 11, 2018 hearing before this Court, the Court ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiffs' Complaint by May 18, 2018.
6. Defendant did not comply with the Court's May 11 Order, failing to timely answer or to tender challenges to the audit's findings as promised at each status hearing subsequent to the issuance of the audit reports. Additionally, Defendant failed to answer Plaintiffs' discovery issued May 7, 2018.
7. After Plaintiff moved for a default judgment, on June 28, 2018, Defendant moved to file its answer instanter on July 4, 2018.
8. The Court granted Defendant's motion at a hearing on July 6, 2018, and further ordered Defendant to answer Plaintiffs' discovery by July 30, 2018.
9. Defendant tendered purported MIDP disclosures on July 17, 2018. The disclosures, however, failed to conform with the Northern District's standing order as they failed to identify any defenses or alternative calculation of damages (i.e., audit challenges). Rather, on those mandatory ...

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.