INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 6; JIM SHERWOOD; LEE DENNEY; CHRIS NAEGELE; EVERETT CHILSON, BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SOUTHERN OHIO PAINTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN AND TRUST FUND v. WARREN T. SMITH; DANA CLARK; JEREMY TURI; JOE CONLEY; JAMES ECK; CHAD HUDEPOHL; KYLE YOUNG; JEFF QVICK - Articles

All Content

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 6; JIM SHERWOOD; LEE DENNEY; CHRIS NAEGELE; EVERETT CHILSON, BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SOUTHERN OHIO PAINTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN AND TRUST FUND v. WARREN T. SMITH; DANA CLARK; JEREMY TURI; JOE CONLEY; JAMES ECK; CHAD HUDEPOHL; KYLE YOUNG; JEFF QVICK

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 31, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Diana Robinson, PAOFF, ROBINSON, & WIDMAN LLC, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Allen S. Kinzer, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees Warren T. Smith and Dana Clark.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Evan T. Priestle, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees Jeremy Turi, Joe Conley, James Eck, Chad Hudepohl, Kyle Young, and Jeff Qvick.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Diana Robinson, PAOFF, ROBINSON, & WIDMAN LLC, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Allen S. Kinzer, Brian W. Dressel, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees Warren T. Smith and Dana Clark. Evan T. Priestle, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees Jeremy Turi, Joe Conley, James Eck, Chad Hudepohl, Kyle Young, and Jeff Qvick.

Judge(s): COLE, WHITE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. This case involves an ERISA fund dispute that pits one side of the fund’s board of trustees against the other. The dividing line, however, is atypical. While board membership is evenly divided between union-appointed trustees and employer-appointed trustees, two union-appointed trustees have, among other things, voted with the employer- appointed trustees to make procedural changes that the union and its other appointed trustees contend have caused fiduciary-duty violations and portend more harm in the future. Chief among the alleged harms, according to the union and its trustees, is the entrenchment of two wayward union trustees that the union would like removed. The union and its fellow plaintiff- trustees were denied a preliminary injunction to head off the harm they fear is brewing and saw their claims against the employer-appointed trustees dismissed by the district court. They appeal each of these decisions. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: