MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AMENDING JUDGMENT (DOC. 47)

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

1. Introduction

This is an ERISA case. Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the Operating Engineers' Local 324 Pension Fund, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Vacation & Holiday Fund, Operating Engineers' Local 324 Retiree Benefit Fund, Operating Engineers' Local Apprenticeship Fund, and Operating Engineers' Local 324 Defined Contribution Plan (collectively Trustees) ask the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for the Mandates of 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2). (Doc. 45). Trustees sued defendants Ferguson Enterprises and Bobby Ferguson (FE) for delinquent ERISA contributions. (Doc. 1). Trustees filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29). After briefing and oral argument, the Court granted the Trustees' motion and entered a judgment in the amount of $162,424.51. (Docs. 37, 38).

Following the entry of judgment, the Trustees filed a motion for the mandates of 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2) (Doc. 39). The Trustees said they were entitled to double interest on the judgment and attorney's fees. The Court granted the request for attorney's fees and denied the request for double interest on the basis that FE had remitted the unpaid contributions prior to the entry of judgment.1 This was incorrect; FE paid nothing to the Trustees. Accordingly, the Trustees moved for reconsideration. (Doc. 49). For the reasons that follow, the Court will amend the judgment (Doc. 47) to include recovery pursuant to §1132(g)(2).

II.

The Court read FE's Response to the Trustees Motion for the Mandates of §1132(g)(2) (Doc. 42) to say that FE paid the delinquent contributions prior to the entry of judgment. FE's response stated:

FE then cited a Sixth Circuit case, Michigan Carpenters Council Health & Welfare Fund v. C.J. Rogers, Inc., 933 F.2d 376, 388-89 (6th Cir. 1991), which stands for the proposition that a defendant can avoid double interest by remitting delinquent contributions prior to judgment. Michigan Carpenters holds that whether or not a contribution is "unpaid" and therefore subject to the mandates of §1132(g)(2) is measured at the time of judgment. However, despite FE's statement that "all payments were paid prior to the Judgment," the Trustees were paid nothing. The Trustees suggest that FE was referring to something other than the $115,026.53, which is the subject of this suit.

In any event, there were unpaid contributions at the time the judgment was entered. The Trustees are entitled to collect the double interest as provided by §1132(g)(2). The Trustees calculate the interest as of December 31, 2011, in the amount of $63,255.22. (Doc. 39 ex. 4). §1132(g)(2) allows the plaintiff to collect liquidated damages provided under the contract no greater than 20% of the unpaid contributions or double interest, whichever is greater. In this case, double interest is the greater of the two. §1132(g)(2)(c)(i).

The final issue that merits reconsideration is the award of late payment liquidated damages. In the Amended Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Trustees Motion for the Mandates of 29 U.S.C.§1132(g)(2) (Doc. 46) the Court explained:

Accordingly, because §1132(g)(2) is an exclusive remedy the Trustees cannot collect late payment liquidated damages, the Court will enter an amended judgment as follows:

SO ORDERED.