District Court Denies Employer Motion to Dismiss ERISA Claims for Delinquent Union Contributions and Alter Ego Liability

The International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, along with related annuity, welfare, and trust funds, sued Statesville Painting and Maintenance LLC and SPM Builders LLC under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The funds allege that Statesville failed to report hours worked and pay corresponding contributions from March 2021 through June 2025, while also ignoring audit requests.

The complaint further contends that SPM Builders is the alter ego of Statesville or a single employer under federal common law. The funds argue the two entities share common ownership, management, equipment, and operations, and that SPM was used to evade labor obligations under the collective bargaining agreement.

Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland rejected the employers’ argument that the funds failed to state a plausible alter ego claim. The court noted that the funds proceeded on alter ego and single employer theories, not corporate veil-piercing, and that the employers offered no substantive challenge to the pleadings supporting those specific theories.

The court also dismissed the employers’ argument that the funds were barred by the collective bargaining agreement’s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures. Judge Rubin found that the funds were not parties to the agreement and that the dispute resolution clause referenced grievances brought by employees or union representatives, not the benefit funds themselves.

Addressing a challenge to the joinder of the Southern Painters Welfare Fund and its trustees, the court held that the claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence and shared a logical relationship. The judge found that the funds’ allegations reflected common questions of law and fact, satisfying the requirements for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.

Finally, the court rejected the employers’ contention that the funds failed to allege sufficient facts to support injunctive relief, liquidated damages, or interest. The judge found that the funds had adequately alleged breaches of the Bargaining and Trust Agreements and cited statutory authority for the requested relief, noting that the employers offered no supporting authority for their cursory objections.

The court’s memorandum opinion, issued on March 24, 2026, denies the motion in its entirety, clearing the way for the funds to pursue their claims for unpaid contributions and related damages.