Thelin v. Mitchell

5 Citing cases

  1. Idaho Plumbers Pipefitters v. Un. Mechanical

    875 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 166 times
    Holding provision that awards "fees incurred in the collection process" "does not apply" when the employer "owed nothing"

    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.

  2. IBEW LOCAL 461 v. COMTEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

    No. 03 C 5736 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2004)

    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.

  3. Laborers' Pension Welfare Fd. v. Milco Construction

    No. 99 C 0374 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2000)

    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.

  4. In re Pre-Press Graphics Company, Inc.

    Bankr. No. 02 B 08292, Adv. No. 03 A. 04400 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jun. 22, 2004)

    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.

  5. In re Pre-Press Graphics Co., Inc.

    310 B.R. 905 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Noting that "economic duress does not exist when the party claiming the duress had a choice as to whether he would perform the act or do the thing said to have been done under 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.