Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Rici Corp.

Background

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Mason Tenders District Council Pension Fund, Mason Tenders District Council Annuity Fund, Mason Tenders District Council Training Fund, Mason Tenders District Council Health and Safety Fund, and Dominick Giammona sued Rici Corp., Slavica Trajkova, and Argonaut Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that Defendants failed to make required benefit contributions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.

After Defendants filed an answer, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Defendants agreed to pay Mason Tenders $1,100,000 in monthly installments over two years in exchange for ending the action. The agreement also provided that, if Defendants missed payments and failed to cure the default, Mason Tenders could seek entry of a consent judgment that the parties had signed in advance. That judgment would make Defendants jointly and severally liable for $1,771,869.80, less amounts paid under the settlement agreement.

The Court approved the settlement and retained jurisdiction, meaning authority to enforce the agreement. Mason Tenders later asserted that Defendants made only the first nine monthly payments, totaling $371,446.20, and missed the payment due October 1, 2024. Defendants made no further payments and did not cure the default after receiving notice. They also did not oppose Mason Tenders’ motion for entry of the consent judgment, despite two court orders directing them to respond.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement when it expressly does so in a court order or incorporates the settlement terms into that order. Once the court approves the settlement and retains jurisdiction, it must enforce the approved agreement.

The court concluded that the settlement’s plain language required Defendants to make monthly payments and required the court, at Mason Tenders’ request, to enter the consent judgment if Defendants failed to make those payments and did not cure the default. The court found that the unrebutted declaration established that Defendants stopped paying after nine installments and did not cure the default. Those events triggered the settlement provision requiring entry of the pre-signed consent judgment.

The opinion states that Mason Tenders requested judgment for an outstanding amount printed as "$1,422.66.02." That amount is internally malformed or inconsistent on the face of the opinion; the court’s discussion does not clarify the figure. The opinion does state that the consent judgment’s initial liability amount was $1,771,869.80, less payments made under the settlement agreement.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Mason Tenders’ motion to enter the consent judgment. The court stated that it would endorse and file the consent judgment separately and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 45. The court did not decide the original unpaid-contribution claims on their merits; it enforced the parties’ court-approved settlement agreement.