Resilient Floor Covering Pension Fund v. Three Rivers Flooring, Inc.

BACKGROUND

23 Plaintiffs brought this case on July 24, 2018, claiming that Three Rivers and Quality are 24 subject to withdrawal liability as alter egos, and that Three Rivers is subject to liability as a 25 successor employer pursuant to the MPPAA. Dkt. No. 1. Quality failed to appear and the clerk 26 granted a default against it on November 7, 2018. Dkt. No. 21. However, I denied plaintiffs’ 27 motion for default judgment on April 4, 2019 because a default judgment against Quality would necessarily bind Three Rivers and preclude it from disputing the amount of withdrawal liability that it may owe. Dkt. No. 33. On December 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims. Three Rivers filed an opposition on December 18 and plaintiffs replied on December 24.1 LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show the absence of a genuine issue of…