Directors of the Ohio Conference of Plasterers and Cement Masons Combined Funds, Inc. v. 21st Century Concrete Construction Inc., 1:18-cv-2957. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190618e80
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 8] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . This case concerns unpaid employee benefits. Defendant 21st Century Concrete Construction Inc. ("21st Century") agreed to make certain benefit fund contributions for its employees. 1 Plaintiffs, the directors for those funds, claim 21st Century missed months of payments, prompting this case. 2 Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a preliminary injunction freezing 21st Century's assets to preserve them during litigation. 3
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 8] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . This case concerns unpaid employee benefits. Defendant 21st Century Concrete Construction Inc. ("21st Century") agreed to make certain benefit fund contributions for its employees. 1 Plaintiffs, the directors for those funds, claim 21st Century missed months of payments, prompting this case. 2 Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a preliminary injunction freezing 21st Century's assets to preserve them during litigation. 3 ..
More
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 8]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
This case concerns unpaid employee benefits. Defendant 21st Century Concrete Construction Inc. ("21st Century") agreed to make certain benefit fund contributions for its employees.1 Plaintiffs, the directors for those funds, claim 21st Century missed months of payments, prompting this case.2
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a preliminary injunction freezing 21st Century's assets to preserve them during litigation.3 However, in a separate case, District Judge Boyko has placed 21st Century's assets into a receivership.4 Plaintiffs' motion is thus moot.
Further, in that case, Judge Boyko enjoined 21st Century's creditors from pursuing legal actions against 21st Century.5 Usually, Judge Boyko's injunction would not reach Plaintiffs, who are not parties in that case.6 Receiverships are, however, different. A district court's authority over the receivership's assets allows it to bind even non-parties.7
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and STAYS this case until Judge Boyko lifts the May 17, 2019 injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 1.
2. Id.
3. Doc. 8. Defendant has not responded.
4. Order Appointing Receiver, Local 310 Trustees, 1:19-cv-764, No. 10 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2019).
5. Id.
6. E.g., Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 117 (1897); Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Johns Ch. 25, 25 (N.Y. Ch. 1819) ("[Y]ou cannot have an injunction, except against a party to the suit. Upon a review of all the cases, I think the practice of granting an injunction against a creditor, who is not a party, is wrong.").
7. Liberte Capital Grp., LLC v. Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 551-52 (6th Cir. 2006).
Source: Leagle
