Skip to main content

Constr. Laborers Trust Funds for S. Cal. Admin. Co. v. Anzalone Masonry, Inc.

C.D. Cal.June 13, 2018No. Case No. 2:17–cv–04221–ODW(AFMx)Cited 24 times
Plaintiff WinAnzalone Masonry, Inc.$3,813.25 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Wright
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendants after they failed to respond to the complaint. Plaintiff recovered attorney's fees and costs, and the court ordered defendant employer to comply with audit obligations under ERISA and the collective bargaining agreement.

What This Ruling Means

**Construction Company Must Pay Worker Benefit Funds After Failing to Respond to Lawsuit** This case involved a dispute between Construction Laborers Trust Funds and Anzalone Masonry, Inc., a construction company. The trust funds, which manage benefits like health insurance and pensions for construction workers, sued Anzalone Masonry for failing to make required payments into these benefit programs and not cooperating with required audits of their records. The court ruled in favor of the trust funds after Anzalone Masonry failed to respond to the lawsuit at all. The company was ordered to pay $3,813.25 in damages plus attorney's fees and costs. More importantly, the court ordered the company to comply with its audit obligations, meaning it must allow the trust funds to examine its records to ensure proper benefit contributions. This case matters for workers because it shows that courts will enforce employers' obligations to pay into benefit funds that provide health insurance, pensions, and other benefits. When construction companies try to avoid these responsibilities or ignore lawsuits entirely, they can face financial penalties and be forced to comply with their contractual duties. This helps protect the benefit programs that construction workers depend on for their healthcare and retirement security.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.