Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

40 F.Supp.2d 503 (1999)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
40 F.Supp.2d 503 (1999)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

William Moriarity was the president of Local 802 (the union) and a trustee of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers Pension Fund (the pension fund) (plaintiff). Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Steven Scott) (defendant) was a company that hired musicians to perform at events such as weddings and bar mitzvahs. Steven Scott made 15 settlement agreements with the union, the pension fund, and Moriarity regarding certain covered employees. The settlement agreements explained that Steven Scott would make contributions to the pension fund for its covered employees in full settlement of all claims against Steven Scott. The agreements further stated that if the pension fund accepted Steven Scott’s contribution payments, it would thereby ratify the agreements. The settlement agreements were signed by an agent of Steven Scott and by Moriarity. The pension fund cashed all 15 checks written by Steven Scott for the pension-fund contributions. Although Moriarity was authorized to collect pension-fund contributions from employers, he was not authorized to enter into settlement agreements for the pension fund. Only the pension fund’s board of trustees could enter into settlement agreements. At the time the settlement agreements were made, Steven Scott did not know that Moriarity was not authorized to enter into the settlement agreements on behalf of the pension fund. The pension fund sought an audit of Steven Scott’s records. Steven Scott argued that the settlement agreements precluded the pension fund from auditing it. The pension fund argued that the settlement agreements were not binding, because Moriarity did not have authority to enter into the agreements. Steven Scott filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the principles of equitable estoppel and apparent authority bound the pension fund to the settlement agreements.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Motley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 790,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership