United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
PRECISE MATERIAL SERVICES, INC., and ANDERSON NANCY, Plaintiffs,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 135, Defendant.,
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. McKINNEY, JUDGE.
Teamsters Local Union No. 135 (“Local 135”) has
moved for summary judgment on all the claims in
Plaintiffs', Precise Material Services, Inc.
(“Precise”), and Nancy Anderson
“Plaintiffs”), Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 38.
For the reasons stated herein, Local 135's Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
stated by the Supreme Court, summary judgment is not a
disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather is an integral
part of the federal rules as a whole, which are designed to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); see also United Ass'n of
Black Landscapers v. City of Milwaukee, 916
F.2d 1261, 1267-68 (7th Cir. 1990). Motions for
summary judgment are governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(a), which provides in relevant part:
The 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.
party has made a properly-supported motion for summary
judgment, the opposing party may not simply rest upon the
pleadings but must instead submit evidentiary materials
showing that a fact either is or cannot be genuinely
disputed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). A genuine issue of material
fact exists whenever “there is sufficient evidence
favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict
for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The nonmoving party
bears the burden of demonstrating that such a genuine issue
of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986);
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.. 621 F.3d
651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). It is not the duty of
the Court to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat
a motion for summary judgment; rather, the nonmoving party
bears the responsibility of identifying applicable evidence.
See Goodman, 621 F.3d at 654; Bombard v. Fort
Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560, 562 (7th
Complaint and Amended Complaint in this case were filed by an
attorney. See Dkt. Nos. 1 & 5. On October 10,
2016, Local 135 filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt.
No. 38. On the same date, Plaintiffs' counsel moved to
withdraw. Dkt. No. 37. On October 13, 2016, the Court held a
hearing on the motion and granted it, notified Anderson that
Precise could not proceed without counsel, and ordered
Precise to obtain counsel on or before November 28, 2016.
Dkt. No. 42. Precise and Anderson did not cause counsel to
appear by that date and at the Status Conference held on
November 29, 2016, Anderson reported that she had not yet
retained counsel. Dkt. No. 43. At that Conference, the Court
also reminded Anderson that Precise could not proceed pro
se, and reminded Anderson of the December 19, 2016,
deadline to file a response to Local 135's Motion for
Summary Judgment. Id. To date, Anderson has not
filed a response and no attorney has appeared for Precise;
therefore, the Court must conclude that there is no genuine
issue of material fact as to Local 135's Statement of
Material Facts Not In Dispute. See Steward v.
McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1034 (7th Cir. 1993),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1121 (1994); S.D. Ind. L.R.
56-1(f)(1). However, summary judgment in favor of Local 135
is not automatic; rather, the Court must determine that given
the undisputed facts, summary judgment is proper as a matter
of law. See Wienco, Inc. v. Katahn Assocs., Inc.,
965 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1992).
material facts not in dispute are:
135 is an unincorporated labor association headquartered in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Dkt. No. 18, Local 135's Ans. to
Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Precise is a trucking and hauling
company headquartered in Lebanon, Indiana. Anderson Dep. at
15 & Exh. 1. Anderson is the owner and President of
Precise. Anderson Dep. at 10, 15; & Anderson Dep. Exh. 1.
was incorporated on May 20, 2009. Anderson Dep. at 10; &
Anderson Dep. Exh. 1. Precise began performing hauling
services on road construction projects in 2012. Anderson Dep.
at 10-12, 14. Precise went out of business in November 2013.
Id. at 13.
to 2012, Precise was solely engaged in leasing trucks to a
trucking company called Circle City Hauling, which is owned
by Anderson's husband, Rick Anderson
(“Rick”). Anderson Dep. at 10-12.
was party to a collective bargaining agreement (the
“CBA”) with Teamsters Joint Council 69, which is
comprised of five Teamster local unions in the state of
Indiana, including Local 135. Anderson Dep. Exh. 2
(“CBA”). The CBA was Dated: Precise's behalf
by Anderson as “Owner/President” on May 7, 2012.
Id. The CBA covers, among other things, “the
hauling of construction materials to, from and on the job
site by the Employer . . . .” Id. at 5.
15 of the CBA contains a grievance procedure culminating in
final and binding arbitration before an arbitrator from the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
(“FMCS”). Id. at 20-21. Anderson was
aware of the grievance procedure contained in the CBA, but
she did not file a grievance before filing this lawsuit, nor
was she prevented from doing so. Anderson Dep. at 24, 40.
22 of the CBA requires signatory employers to make health and
welfare contributions on behalf of their employees to the
Indiana Teamsters Health Benefits Fund for their
employees' health and welfare benefits. CBA at 24-26.
23 of the CBA requires signatory employers to make
contributions on behalf of their employees to the Indiana
Teamsters Pension Fund or the Central States Pension Fund for
their employees' retirement benefits. Id. at
28-31. Precise agreed to contribute to the Indiana Teamsters
Pension Fund. Anderson Dep. at 29; Anderson Dep. Exh. 4.
22 and 23, respectively, provide that if a signatory employer
fails to make its health and welfare or pension contributions
on behalf of its employees, the employees and their local
union “shall have the right to take such action as they
deem necessary, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) refraining from work, strike and picketing until such