Automobile Mechanics' Local No. 701 Union and Industry Pension Fund et al v. Dynamic Garage, Inc. et al
||Automobile Mechanics' Local No. 701 Union and Industry Pension Fund and Automobile Mechanics' Local No. 701 Union and Industry Welfare Fund
||Dynamic Garage, Inc. and Fab Express, Inc.
||September 15, 2016
||US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
||Edmond E. Chang
|Nature of Suit:
||Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|September 30, 2018
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 9/30/2018: For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Defendants' motion 59 for summary judgment is granted on the alter-ego claim, as well as on excluding FAB trailer and field mechanics and the JJH employees. The Funds' motion 56 is granted insofar as Dynamic and FAB are deemed to be a single employer, and also on the issue of FAB's ongoing obligations to contribute for Salazar and Bednarowicz. The remai ning dispute is whether the CBA (and the corresponding benefits obligation) applies to Genebacher. The parties shall commence settlement negotiations immediately. At the next status hearing, the parties shall report on the settlement progress, and al so shall be prepared to state their position on whether an in-court evidentiary hearing is needed (essentially, a bench trial on the claim as to Genebacher), or whether they are willing to submit that issue to the Court on the papers for a finding.Emailed notice(eec)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?