Ana M. Hanson v. Stuart Dean Company Inc
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
O 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California
10
11 ANA M. HANSON et al., Case № 2:18-cv-06682-ODW (PLAx)
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
13 v.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14 STUART DEAN COMPANY et al., JUDGMENT [19]
15 Defendants.
16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiffs Ana M. Hanson and Tim D. Maitland, as trustees and administrators of 19 their respective trusts (“Plaintiffs” or “Trust Funds”), sue to compel an audit of 20 Defendant Stuart Dean Company’s (“Stuart Dean”) records to determine contributions 21 allegedly due to the trusts’ employee benefit plans. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs 22 move for summary judgment, contending that Stuart Dean is obligated, pursuant to 23 various collective bargaining agreements, to make contributions to the Trust Funds and 24 allow the Trust Funds to perform audits (“Motion”). (Mot. for Summ. J. (“Mot.”) 1, 25 ECF No. 19.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.1 26 27
28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion,…