Cluster 1316497

Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir. 2008); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1399 (b)(1) (a notice and demand must be sent to “the employer” and must include the amount of liability, a schedule of payments, and a demand for payment”).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 598 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding that the standard is “indulgent about the specific form a notice and demand may take”); Bowers v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 901 F.2d 258, 263 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that a complaint met the MPPAA’s notice require- ments).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir. 2008); Banner Indus., 875 F.2d at 1288.

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up and internal citations omitted).

And any dispute between an employer and the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan concerning the withdrawal liability “shall be resolved through arbitration.” 29 U.S.C. § 1401 ; Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 2008); Hancock v. Cook Cnty.

Apr. 5, 2010)) (quoting Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 598 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir. 2008).

Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595-6 (7th Cir. 2001).

Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1401 (b)(1)).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 604 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that liquidated damages are “the penalty that the employer pays for forcing a plan sponsor to litigate”).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 600-01 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Statutory Framework and Undisputed Facts Given that ERISA is “famously complicated and often tedious,” Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court begins with an overview of the relevant law.

Evade or Avoid Withdrawal Liability ERISA contains provisions that “ensure that employers live up to the obligations they owe to the pension fund and to the employees who participate in it,” and to that end, Congress has “recognized that employers that have substantial pension liabilities may attempt to shirk their obligations through deceptive transactions.” Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir. 2008).

Co. v. López-Muñoz (In re López-Muñoz), 866 F.3d 487, 497 (1st Cir. 2017); Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 598 (7th Cir. 2008).

“The controlled group provision allows a plan to deal exclusively with the defaulting employer known to the fund, while at the same time assuring [itself] that legal remedies can be maintained against all related entities in the control group.” Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595-96 (7th Cir. 2008).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir. 2008).

Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir.2008).

For purposes of ERISA, they note, all of the Caesars entities discussed here (the debtors, CEOC, CEC, CERP, and the Caesars employers) are a “single employer” because they are under “common control,” 29 U.S.C. § 1301 (b)(1), members of what is called the “controlled group,” see Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595-96 (7th Cir.2008).

Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, to prevail on a collection claim, a fund must show that: “(1) the Fund was a multiemployer pension plan and the Defendants were an employer for the purposes of ERISA,” (2) “the Fund notified the Defendants of their assessed liability,” and (3) “Defendants failed to timely initiate arbitration.” Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir.2008) (citation omitted).

Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2008); Central States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Bomar Nat’l, Inc., 253 F.3d 1011 , 1016 (7th Cir.2001).

Milwaukee Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595-596 (7th Cir.2008).

However, the cases Plaintiffs cite involve factual disputes affecting determinations that must be made under the enumerated provisions. 5 See Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 597 (7th Cir.2008) (the defendant’s continued employer status depended on a determination of whether the merger was designed to “evade or avoid” 6 withdrawal liability); 666 Drug, Inc., 2012 WL 1142464 , at *1 (finding that “factual issues lie at the root of Plaintiffs dispute that tu…

The discounted pools are then divided among the employers on the basis of their relative contributions in the pool year and the four prior years (CPC made 3.67 percent of all contributions to the fund from 2000 to 2004 and 1.42 percent of all contributions from 1985 to 1989.) Its withdrawal liability (exit price) was thus the sum of its shares of each of the discounted pools from 1985 to 2004. 100% Minus Discounted CPC’s Relative CPC’s Share of Year Pool Discount Rate Pool C…

Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2008) (exceptions made only in "rarest cases"); Bowers v. Andrew Weir Shipping, Ltd., 27 F.3d 800, 807 (2nd Cir.1994)(exceptions to arbitrate first requirement "narrow”); Board of Trustees of Const. Laborers’ Pension Trust for Southern California v. M.M.

April 5, 2010) (quoting Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 598 (7th Cir.2008)).

Scott Printing is Responsible as Employer ERISA has been described as “famously complicated and often tedious.” Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2008).

See 29 U.S.C § 1301(b)(1); Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595-96 (7th Cir.2008).

See id.

See El Paso , 525 F.3d at 598 ; Salt Creek Terminals , 1986 WL 21503 , at *2-3.

See, Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1392 (c)).

See Chi Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 600-01 (7th Cir.2008).

Cal. 1984); see also Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso Co., 525 F.3d 591, 598 (7th Cir. 2008) (“schedules serve little purpose where the recipient is in bankruptcy, where the bankruptcy court can ultimately set its own schedule” and “whether the notice and demand in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy must include a schedule of payments, concern[s] compliance with Section 1399, and thus, [is] subject to arbitration”). the Court through the application of the Rexene factors.39 The briefs …

See also Chicago Truck Drivers v. El Paso CGP Co., 525 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2008); Artistic Furniture, 920 F.2d at 1328 .