National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Mirarchi Brothers, Inc. ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1867
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, by its trustees;
SALVATORE J. CHILIA, Trustee; D. R. BORDEN, JR., Trustee,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
MIRARCHI BROTHERS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:11-cv-02621-DKC)
Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2014
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew I. Sack, DAVIS BUCCO & ARDIZZI, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania; Jeffrey D. McMahan, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS LLP,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer Bush Hawkins,
POTTS-DUPRE, DIFEDE & HAWKINS, CHTD., Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mirarchi Brothers, Incorporated, appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment for National Electrical
Benefit Fund (“NEBF”) under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and awarding NEBF unpaid contributions,
liquidated damages, interest, and audit fees related to an audit
of Mirarchi’s contribution records. On appeal, Mirarchi
contends that summary judgment is improper because there is a
genuine dispute over whether it owes NEBF unpaid contributions.
Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of
summary judgment, “viewing the facts and the reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th
Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). A court should grant summary judgment unless a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249 (1986). We conclude that, in this case, there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3