Opinion
22-cv-10709
11-12-2024
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LARAMIE ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs, the funds collecting employee benefit contributions (the “Funds”), move to strike Defendant Laramie Enterprises, Inc.'s jury demand for its counterclaim. ECF No. 62. The Honorable Shalina D. Kumar referred the case to the undersigned for all non-dispositive pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 69.
The Funds bring this ERISA collection action under 20 U.S.C. § 1145 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), claiming that Laramie failed to make fringe benefit contributions as required under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). ECF No. 1. In its answer and counter-complaint, Laramie asserts that it overpaid benefits because the Funds charged it higher rates set forth in a memorandum of understanding that conflicted with the CBA. ECF No. 6, PageID.28-29; ECF No. 27, PageID.380-381. Laramie's sole remaining counterclaim for equitable restitution and unjust enrichment seeks a refund of those overpayments. ECF No. 27, PageID.384.
The Funds move to strike Laramie's jury demand because its counterclaim is equitable in nature. ECF No. 62. The Funds are correct that there is no right to a jury trial in an action seeking purely equitable relief. Crews v. Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 788 F.2d 332, 338 (6th Cir. 1986). But if a case involves both equitable and legal claims that hinge on the same factual issues, those factual issues must be tried before a jury. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Adie, 982 F.Supp. 1269, 1271-72 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
The parties must submit supplemental briefing addressing (1) whether the Funds' ERISA claim must be tried before a juryand (2) whether Laramie's counterclaim involves factual issues that overlap with the Funds' ERISA claim, which would need to be resolved by a jury. The Funds must file their supplement by November 19 , and Laramie's response must be filed by November 26 . The motion will be addressed during the hearing scheduled for December 9, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
Although the Funds did not make a jury demand in their complaint, Laramie demanded one in its answer. ECF No. 6.
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.