International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Health and Welfare Fund et al v. S&R Corporation
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Health and Welfare Fund, Internation Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Pension Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Annuity Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 and Employers Cooperative Trust, Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Annuity Fund, Pension Fund, Health and Welfare Fund and Joint Training, Retraining, Skill Improvement, Safety Education, Apprenticeship and Training and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98, AFL-CIO,
Defendant: S&R Corporation
Case Number: 3:2012cv30192
Filed: November 12, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Springfield Office
County: Hampden
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 119 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered; granting Plaintiffs' 100 Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. To summarize, the amount awarded will be fees and expenses in the amount of $90,424.97 and full reimbursement for t he costs of the audit of $10,149.55, for a total of $100,574.52. Payment will be tendered by Defendant to Plaintiffs within forty-five days of the date of this order, unless Defendant chooses to file a notice of appeal of this decision. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete. details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
March 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 98 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 72 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 72 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 72 Motion for Costs; denying as moot 93 Motion to Consider Plaintiff Fund's Redact ing Arbitration Award in any Summary Judgment Determination. "... On or before April 30, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs shall submit to the court supplemental materials specifying the exact amount of fees and expenses incurred in prosecuting thi s action to date, along with affidavits attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by its attorneys. Counsel for Defendant may respond to this submission on or before May 30, 2015. The court will consider these submissions on the pap ers. Also by April 30, counsel for Plaintiffs will submit a proposed schedule for any potential further proceedings seeking payment of delinquencies, if any, revealed by the audit. Counsel for Defendant may resond by May 30. The court will thereafter determine what further proceedings are necessary." See Memorandum and Order for further details. (Healy, Bethaney)
July 31, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 88 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered. re Dft's 85 Objection. OVERRULED. The June 30, 2014 ruling by Judge Neiman was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. So Ordered. (Lindsay, Maurice)
March 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 71 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ORDER RE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS entered. As follows; The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 31 ) is hereby DENIED without prejudice, The Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 50 ) is hereby DENIED without prejudice, and Counsel will have until 4/4/14 to complete the depositions. See the attached order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
September 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 48 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated in the attached memo and order, Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Stay (Dkt. No. 11 ) is hereby DENIED, and Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 24 ) is hereb y ALLOWED. These rulings leave before the court PlaintiffsMotion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 31 ). Lengthier discussion will be necessary to rule on this motion, and the court has issued a separate order with regard to discussions that, in the courts view, might properly lead to resolution of this dispute. In any event, a further memorandum will issue on this motion in a short time. It is So Ordered. See the attached order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Health and Welfare Fund et al v. S&R Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Health and Welfare Fund
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Internation Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Pension Fund
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Annuity Fund
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 and Employers Cooperative Trust
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98 Annuity Fund, Pension Fund, Health and Welfare Fund and Joint Training, Retraining, Skill Improvement, Safety Education, Apprenticeship and Training
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: International Union of Operating Engineers Local 98, AFL-CIO,
Represented By: Bryan T. Arnault
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: S&R Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?