29 U.S.C. § 1451

Civil actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Persons entitled to maintain actions(1) A plan fiduciary, employer, plan participant, or beneficiary, who is adversely affected by the act or omission of any party under this subtitle with respect to a multiemployer plan, or an employee organization which represents such a plan participant or beneficiary for purposes of collective bargaining, may bring an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief, or both.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this section does not authorize an action against the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, or the corporation.(b) Failure of employer to make withdrawal liability payment within prescribed time

In any action under this section to compel an employer to pay withdrawal liability, any failure of the employer to make any withdrawal liability payment within the time prescribed shall be treated in the same manner as a delinquent contribution (within the meaning of section 1145 of this title).

The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an action under this section without regard to the amount in controversy, except that State courts of competent jurisdiction shall have concurrent jurisdiction over an action brought by a plan fiduciary to collect withdrawal liability.

(d) Venue and service of process

An action under this section may be brought in the district where the plan is administered or where a defendant resides or does business, and process may be served in any district where a defendant resides, does business, or may be found.

(e) Costs and expenses

In any action under this section, the court may award all or a portion of the costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party.

(f) Time limitationsAn action under this section may not be brought after the later of—(1) 6 years after the date on which the cause of action arose, or(2) 3 years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff acquired or should have acquired actual knowledge of the existence of such cause of action; except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be brought not later than 6 years after the date of discovery of the existence of such cause of action.(g) Service of complaint on corporation; intervention by corporation

A copy of the complaint in any action under this section or section 1401 of this title shall be served upon the corporation by certified mail. The corporation may intervene in any such action.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4301, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1263.)Editorial NotesEffective Date

Part effective Sept. 26, 1980, except as specifically provided, see section 1461(e) of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 383 cases (58 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: John H. Held v. Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corporation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John H. Held v. Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corporation (1990) ca10 · cites it 8× “§ 1113 , is applicable to violations of Part 4 of the Act (“Fiduciary Responsibility”), 2 and § 4301, 29 U.S.C. § 1451 , applies to multiemployer plans.”

Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of California, Inc. (1997) scotus · cites it 5× “First, the court concluded that 29 U. S. C. § 1451 (f )(2)’s three-year “discovery” rule controlled.”

Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, Esq., Dba Nudelman, Klemm & Golub, P.C. (2018) ca3 · cites it 3× “When a statute of limitations begins to run only when "the plaintiff acquired or should have acquired actual knowledge of the existence of such cause of action," the discovery rule plainly applies.”

TRW Inc. v. Andrews (2001) scotus · cites it 2× “There is in my view little doubt that it is not, and our reluctance to say so today is inexplicable, given that we held, a mere four years ago, that a statute of limitations which says the period runs from "the date on which the cause of action arose," 29 U. S. C. § 1451 (f)(1)…”

Flowers Industries, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund (1983) gand · cites it 14× “The Fund urges this court to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue is improperly laid in the Northern District of Georgia, contending (1) that Title 4, Section 4301(d) of the MPPAA, 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (d), is the sole and exclusive venue provision for actions brought…”

Board of Trustees of the District No. 15 MacHinists Pension Fund v. Kahle Engineering Corporation, a New Jersey Corporat (1994) ca3 · cites it 7× “2 With the statutory scheme in mind, we turn to the facts of this case. Our task is to determine when the Pension Fund’s “cause of action” that is the subject of this suit arose.”

Marek v. Chesny (1985) scotus · cites it 2× “1263 , 29 U. S. C. § 1451 (e). 3. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 91 Stat.”

Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (1983) ca9 · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 1451 (g) (Supp. V 1981). The Guaranty Corporation declined the trustees’ invitation to intervene, though it said it would monitor the case.”

LEE BORNTRAGER, PLAINTIFFS—APPELLEES v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, DEFENDANT—APPELLANT (2005) ca8 · cites it 4× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (a)(1). However, a dispute over the amount of withdrawal liability must first be arbitrated.”

Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 80 Pension Trust Fund v. Cooling (2008) mied · cites it 7× “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1451 (a)(1), (b) (“In any action under this section to compel an employer to pay withdrawal liability, any failure of the employer to make any withdrawal liability payment within the time prescribed shall be treated in the same manner as a delinquent…”

John T. Joyce, Trustee of the Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Clyde Sandoz Masonry, D/B/A Gr (1989) cadc · cites it 5× “See 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (f). In the case before us, the trustees (“plan sponsors”) of the Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund (“Fund”) filed suit in federal district court *1120 to recover withdrawal liability from Clyde Sandoz Masonry, Inc.”

Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund (2021) ca6 · cites it 3× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (e). The district court declined to award attorney’s fees to either party because “[t]his case presented very close arguments on complicated legal matters .”

Show all 383 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 1451(a)(1) — 1 case

Lee Borntrager v. Central States, SE (2005) ca8

— 29 U.S.C. § 1451(c) — 2 cases

Boland v. Fortis Construction Co. (2011) dcd

Boland v. Fortis Construction Company, LLC (2011) dcd

— 29 U.S.C. § 1451(e) — 1 case

Raber v. Southern Ohio Coal (1997) ca4

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.