See, e.g., Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d at 1342; Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Serv., Inc., 854 F.2d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 864 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1989), rehearing en banc, 870 F.2d 1148 (7th Cir. 1989); Vernau v. Bowen Enter., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 721, 724-25 (W.D.Pa. 1986); LaJiness v. Reactor Controls, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 27, 32 (E.D.Mich. 1985); Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F. Supp. 1404, 1408-09 (N.D.Ill. 1983). Here, UMC paid the contributions before suit was filed.
XIII, § 13.04), Plaintiff Funds are entitled to recover audit costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F. Supp. 1404, 1408 (N.D. Ill. 1983); Laborer's Pension Fund, 2000 WL 1372846, at *4. Therefore, based on these and other admissions, we grant the Funds' motion for summary judgment and award $40,152.62 for delinquent contributions, $8,030.52 for liquidated damages, and $1200.00 for audit costs.
In addition, pursuant to ERISA Section 502(g)(2), Section 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and the applicable collective bargaining agreement and Agreements and Declarations of Trust, the Laborers Funds are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Idaho Plumbers Pipefitters v. United Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D.Ill 1983). Further, the defendants are hereby ordered to create and maintain a surety bond guarantying its covered employees wages and contributions as required under the Agreement.
However, "[i]t is not wrongful to threaten to do something that one has a legal right to do." Riv Vil, 979 F. Supp. at 656 ( citing Alexander, 423 N.E.2d at 582); Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F. Supp. 1404, 1408 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (citations omitted) (finding that a party's threat to assert its legal rights does not rise to the level of economic duress unless it involves some abuse of the legal process). Unless wrongful or unlawful pressure is exerted, there is no economic duress.
However, "[i]t is not wrongful to threaten to do something that one has a legal right to do." Riv Vil, 979 F.Supp. at 656 (citing Alexander, 53 Ill.Dec. 194, 423 N.E.2d at 582); Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F.Supp. 1404, 1408 (N.D.Ill.1983) (citations omitted) (finding that a party's threat to assert its legal rights does not rise to the level of economic duress unless it involves some abuse of the legal process). Unless wrongful or unlawful pressure is exerted, there is no economic duress.