00-3922 Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Hunt Truck Lines, Inc.

Listen to this article

“[I]n the broader context of this litigation, an award of fees would do nothing but encourage the very foot-dragging and avoidance of interim payment liability that the statute was designed to prevent, and thus would be ‘unjust.’… Our cases make clear that a district court considering an award of fees should take into consideration any ‘special circumstances’ which would make an award of fees unjust, see Meredith, 935 F.2d at 128, and that directive is broad enough to encompass consideration of pending, related litigation between the parties.

“Once we take this broader context into account, it becomes clear why fees would be inappropriate here. Although Hunt won this round of its battle with Central States, as far as we can tell from the record, there is no dispute that Hunt will ultimately face withdrawal liability. Nevertheless, Hunt has continued to refuse to make payments to Central States, and as of the date of oral argument in this case had not paid anything. The fact that Hunt has now managed to put off making its first payment on its liability for several years confirms our suspicion that Hunt’s primary motivation in this case was not to force Central States to issue a new demand notice revising the withdrawal date by a few months (which Central States has long since done), but to delay paying its withdrawal liability for as long as possible. In the face of Hunt’s obstinance, it would be unjust to require Central States to pay Hunt over $100,000. Given the fact that Hunt apparently is not financially stable and that Central States fears that, when it finally does receive an enforceable award against Hunt, Hunt will no longer be able to pay, the injustice of ordering an award at this stage is particularly acute.”

Reversed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Nordberg, J., Diane P. Wood, J.