Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ali

Ali

Ratings: (0)|Views: 55|Likes:
Published by Eriq Gardner
@eriqgardner
@eriqgardner

More info:

Published by: Eriq Gardner on May 06, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
282674.2 11011-14018
 
COMPLAINT
   B
   U   S   H 
   G
   O   T   T   L   I   E   B
   S
   I   N   G   E   R
   L
    Ó   P   E   Z
   K
   O   H   A   N   S   K   I
   A
   D   E   L   S   T   E   I   N 
   &   D
   I   C   K   I   N   S   O   N
 
   5   0   0   N  o  r  t   h   C  e  n  t  r  a   l   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i  t  e   8   0   0   G   l  e  n   d  a   l  e ,   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a   9   1   2   0   3 -   3   3   4   5
 
DAVID ADELSTEIN (SBN 105250) dadelstein@bushgottlieb.com BUSH GOTTLIEB A Law Corporation 500 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Glendale, California 91203-3345 Telephone: (818) 973-3200 Facsimile: (818) 973-3201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan and Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan and Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan Plaintiffs vs. Initial Entertainment Group, Inc., and Miramax Holding Corp.. a Delaware Corporation Defendants
CASE NO. CV-14-3461 COMPLAINT TO RECOVER UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974; AND FOR BREACH OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT [29 U.S.C. §§ 1145 and 185(a)]
Plaintiffs Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan and Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan (“Plans”) allege:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
 
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, §502(e)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (hereinafter “ERISA”) [29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(1)] and §301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (hereinafter “LMRA”) [29 U.S.C. §185(a)]. This is an action by the Plans for breach of collective bargaining agreements between employers and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting
Case 2:14-cv-03461-SS Document 1 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
282674.2 11011-14018
 2
COMPLAINT
   B
   U   S   H 
   G
   O   T   T   L   I   E   B
   S
   I   N   G   E   R
   L
    Ó   P   E   Z
   K
   O   H   A   N   S   K   I
   A
   D   E   L   S   T   E   I   N 
   &   D
   I   C   K   I   N   S   O   N
 
   5   0   0   N  o  r  t   h   C  e  n  t  r  a   l   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i  t  e   8   0   0   G   l  e  n   d  a   l  e ,   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a   9   1   2   0   3 -   3   3   4   5
 
commerce and to enforce § 515 of ERISA [29 U.S.C. § 1145] as amended by § 306(a) of the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (hereinafter “MPPAA”). 2.
 
Such jurisdiction exists without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, as provided in § 502(f) of ERISA [29 U.S.C. § 1132(f)] and § 301(a) of the LMRA [29 U.S.C. § 185(a)]. 3.
 
Venue is based on the location of the office in which the Plans are administered, which is located in the Central District of California. As such, venue is appropriate pursuant to § 502(e)(2) of ERISA [29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2)] and under § 301 of the LMRA [29 U.S.C. §185(a)].
PARTIES
4.
 
The Directors are trustees who administer the assets of the Plans. The Plans are “employee welfare benefit plans” within the meaning of § 3(2) of ERISA, [29 U.S.C. § 1002(37)(A)] in that they were created pursuant to written declarations of trust (hereinafter “Trust Agreements”) between the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (hereinafter “IATSE”), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Studio Transportation Drivers Local #349 (hereinafter “IBT”) and motion picture and television producer employers, and are maintained for the purpose of providing their participants and beneficiaries with medical, surgical and hospital benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability or death, and retirement benefits. The Plans were created and now exist pursuant to § 302(c) of the LMRA. 5.
 
The Directors are fiduciaries under ERISA and have an obligation to protect the Plans’ assets including ensuring that employers are properly remitting pension and health contributions to the Plans as required under collective bargaining agreements between the IATSE and IBT, and the Defendants [hereinafter the “Agreements”]. Under the Trust Agreements, the Directors have control and authority over the Plans, including the authority to file actions such as the present case to protect the Plans’ trust assets.
Case 2:14-cv-03461-SS Document 1 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:2
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
282674.2 11011-14018
 3
COMPLAINT
   B
   U   S   H 
   G
   O   T   T   L   I   E   B
   S
   I   N   G   E   R
   L
    Ó   P   E   Z
   K
   O   H   A   N   S   K   I
   A
   D   E   L   S   T   E   I   N 
   &   D
   I   C   K   I   N   S   O   N
 
   5   0   0   N  o  r  t   h   C  e  n  t  r  a   l   A  v  e  n  u  e ,   S  u   i  t  e   8   0   0   G   l  e  n   d  a   l  e ,   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a   9   1   2   0   3 -   3   3   4   5
 
6.
 
The Plans are “multi-employer plans” within the meaning of § 3(37)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37)(A) in that more than one employer is required to contribute to the Plans and the Plans are maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements between the IATSE, the IBT and multiple motion picture and television producers. 7.
 
At all times material herein, the IATSE and IBT have been labor organizations representing employees in the motion picture and television business which is an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 302 of the LMRA. 8.
 
Defendant Initial Entertainment Group, Inc. [hereinafter “IEG”], at all times relevant herein, is and has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California, and is an “employer” within the meaning of § 3(5) of ERISA, [29 U.S.C. § 1002(5)] and § 501 of the LMRA, [29 U.S.C. § 142]. As such, IEG is an employer as that term is used in § 301(a) of the LMRA [29 U.S.C. § 185(a)]. 9.
 
Defendant Miramax Holding Corp. [hereinafter “Miramax”] at all times relevant herein, is and has been a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and licensed to do business by the State of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California, and is both an “employer” within the meaning of § 3(5) of ERISA, [29 U.S.C. § 1002(5)] and § 501 of the LMRA, [29 U.S.C. § 142]. As such, Miramax is an employer as that term is used in § 301(a) of the LMRA [29 U.S.C. § 185(a)].
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RE “ALI”
10.
 
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., [hereinafter “Columbia”] produced the theatrical motion picture entitled “Ali” pursuant to its written collective bargaining Agreements with the IATSE and the IBT, and employed motion picture technicians in accordance with those Agreements. Columbia produced “Ali” as a signatory to the terms and conditions of the Trust Agreements creating the Plans at all times material herein. At all times material herein, Columbia has been obligated to the
Case 2:14-cv-03461-SS Document 1 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->