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.

Jahnke v. Maximum Technologies Incorporated

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 13, 2015

FRED JAHNKE and PETER LINDAHL, as Trustees of the IBEW Local No. 292 Health Care Plan, Trustees of the Electrical Workers Local No. 292 Annuity & 401(k) Fund, and as Trustees of the Minneapolis Electrical Industry Board/JATC/LMCC, and each of their successors, Plaintiffs,
v.
MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Defendant.

ORDER

PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge.

This matter came before the undersigned on May 11, 2015. Amanda R. Cefalu, Esq., of Anderson, Helgen, Davis & Cefalu, P.A. appeared for and on behalf of Plaintiffs. There was no appearance on behalf of Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Summons and Complaint were filed with the Court on February 6, 2015 and served on Defendant on February 10, 2015.

2. Defendant has failed to file and serve a response or Answer to the Complaint. The Application for Entry of Default and Affidavit of Amanda R. Cefalu in support of the Application for Entry of Default were filed with the Court on March 10, 2015. The Clerk's Entry of Default was entered on March 11, 2015.

3. Plaintiffs are trustees and fiduciaries of the above-referenced funds ("Funds"). The Funds are part of a multi-employer jointly-trusteed fringe benefit plan created and maintained pursuant to § 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). The Funds are administered in accordance with the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Plaintiffs Fred Jahnke and Peter Lindahl, and any subsequently appointed successor, are Trustees of the respective Funds and fiduciaries under ERISA § 3(21), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21). All contributions must be made and all reports must be submitted to IBEW Local 292 Benefit Office, 6900 Wedgwood Road, Suite 425, Maple Grove, MN 55311, as the administrative agent designated by the Trustees.

4. Defendant, through its execution of a Letter of Assent, agreed to be bound to the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter "Limited Energy Agreement") between the Minneapolis Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union Number 292, A.F.L. - C.I.O. The Limited Energy Agreement requires employers to make fringe benefit contributions to the Funds in accordance with its terms. These contributions must be made on behalf of all employees covered by the Limited Energy Agreement, in amounts set forth and agreed upon therein, for the purpose of funding employee benefits. The employer, such as Defendant, is required to complete a report form with the information as required by the Trustees, identifying each of its employees performing covered service during the month and each covered hour worked by that employee during the month. The report is required to be submitted with the payment for the amounts due not later than the 15th day of the following month.

5. The Limited Energy Agreement also requires employers, such as Defendant, to make available their employment and payroll records for examination and audit by the Trustees of the Funds or their authorized agents whenever such examination is deemed, by the Trustees, to be necessary to the proper administration of the Funds and to ascertain whether the employer has properly complied with its fringe benefit contribution obligations.

6. Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that Defendant produce a complete set of all employment and payroll records for audit for the period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014 for the purposes of auditing the records to determine Defendant's compliance with the terms of the Limited Energy Agreement.

7. Defendant has failed and refused to produce the records for audit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Defendant is in default, and Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of a default judgment.

2. Defendant is required to produce an accurate set of the records requested by Plaintiffs to allow Plaintiffs to complete an audit of their records for the period ...


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.