- Case Type:
- Case Status:
- Reversed and Remanded
- No. 17-1980 (7th Circuit, Jul 31,2018) Not Published
- The district court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was reversed and remanded due to the Seventh Circuit finding that Plaintiff proffered considerable evidence that a trier of fact could use to support its case against Defendant.
- Procedural context:
- The Indiana State Council of Plasterers and Cement Masons Health and Welfare and Pension Funds (“Plaintiffs” or “the Funds”) filed suit against Defendant, CWG Plastering, LLC (“CWG”) asserting that CWG is the successor and alter ego of Gianino Plastering (Gianino), and thus liable for both a prior judgment against Gianino and for ongoing violations of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Gianino and the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association Local 3 (the “Union”). After discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled that the Funds had not produced sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The Funds appealed the decision. The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the decision based on their de novo review of the record and finding that the Funds proffered considerable evidence that a trier of fact could use to support its claims against GWC.
- Gianino Plastering was owned by Walter “Wally” Gianino for over thirty years. Gianino had a CBA with the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association Local 3 (the “Union”), which required Gianino to make regular contributions to the Indiana State Council of Plasterers and Cement Masons Health and Welfare and Pension Funds. When Gianino fell behind on payments, the Funds sued Gianino to recover the delinquent payments. The district court entered judgment in favor of the Funds and against Gianino. Following the judgment, Gianino Plastering filed bankruptcy, blocking the Funds from collecting on the judgment. Subsequent to this bankruptcy filing, the Funds filed suit against CWG alleging that it was the successor and alter ego of Gianino. Evidence was introduced showing that CWG was owned by Curt Gianino, son of Wally Gianino, and went into business on the same day that the aforementioned judgment was entered against Gianino. Additionally, CWG not only took over existing contracts of Gianino, but three of the four employees of Gianino immediately became employees of CWG. These facts, in addition to others, were the basis for the Seventh Circuit determining that, as a whole, the record would allow reasonable factfinders to differ.
- Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Wood
George Czaplinski v. Bank of America
Summarizing by Lars Fuller
3144 in the system
1 Being Processed