Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Berluti McLaughlin
-
Service | Filed: May 02, 2024 | Entered: May 02, 2024 Edward F. Groden v. Deering Construction, Inc. et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Massachusetts
Summons Returned Executed
SUMMONS Returned Executed Deering Construction, Inc. served on 4/29/2024, answer due 5/20/2024. (Brennan, Melissa)
-
Order | Filed: April 26, 2024 | Entered: April 26, 2024 Edward F. Groden v. Deering Construction, Inc. et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Dismiss
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 5 Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff Edward Groden, as Executive Director of the New England Teamsters Pension Fund, brings this action against defendants Deering Construction, Inc. (Deering Construction) and its erstwhile Principal and Treasurer, Daniel J. Deering, IV (Deering). Deering moves to dismiss the sole claim asserted against him: Count II for alleged violation of ERISA § 4219(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1399(a), which provides that "[a]n employer shall, within 30 days after a written request from the plan sponsor, furnish such information as the plan sponsor reasonably determines to be necessary to enable the plan sponsor to comply with the requirements of this part." Deering argues that he is not an "employer" in the meaning of the statute and that any action he undertook on behalf of Deering Construction was strictly in his corporate capacity. Groden cross-moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that if it is not Daniel Deering who will be held to answer the Pension Funds' Withdrawal Questionnaire, then who will? For the following reasons, the court will allow Deering's motion and deny Groden's motion.
As an initial matter, the court doubts whether it may, as a matter of law, find an individual to be an "employer" within the scope of ERISA § 4219(a) when the parties appear to agree that the same individual is not an employer for the purposes of ERISA § 4301, 29 U.S.C. § 1451. See DeBrecini v. Graf Bros. Leasing, Inc., 828 F.2 877 (1st Cir. 1987) (declining "to define the word 'employer' to include controlling shareholders and officers"). But see Mass. Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Starrett Paving Corp., 845 F.2d 23, 24-25 (1st Cir. 1988) (suggesting, in dicta, that the Court might change its mind).
This court need not, however, weigh in on the issue, as nothing in the Complaint plausibly supports the inference that Deering qualifies as an employer in any relevant statutory sense. The only factual allegations against him are that he (1) "is a Principal and the Treasurer for Deering [Construction] pursuant to filings with the Connecticut Secretary of State," and (2) that he failed to answer the Withdrawal Liability Questionnaire. See Compl. [Dkt # 1] paras. 6, 16, 18.
Although the court will dismiss Count II as a matter of law, it notes that Groden fails to meet face on the pertinent issue -- whether Deering, as the sole surviving corporate representative of the now-defunct Deering Construction company, can be held to answer the Questionnaire in his corporate capacity or, alternatively, be compelled to designate or devise an appropriate substitute. It is open to Groden, of course, to address that issue in a subsequent pleading. (Deering, for his part, directs his energy to the argument that he is shielded from any personal responsibility for payment of the company's withdrawal liability by long-established principles of corporate law, which may be true, but is not an issue raised by Groden in his Complaint or pleadings and therefore is not before the court). (RGS, law3) -
Response | Filed: April 26, 2024 | Entered: April 26, 2024 Tuck v. Shroyer et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New Hampshire
Response - not to Motion
RESPONSE re 86 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Gene Shroyer, US Construction Corporation, US Shared Services Corporation, US Specialty Corporation. (Van Rossum, Marrielle)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login