Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04024/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN

MATEO HOTEL EMPLOYEES, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GOOD-NITE INN INVESTMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04024 CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their claim for breach of a collective bargaining

agreement (“CBA”) by defendant. Pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act (“ERISA”), plaintiffs seek to recover employee benefit contributions, liquidated

damages, and interest due for the months of November 2004 through June 2005, as well as

attorneys’ fees. Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion. 

Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Where the moving party bears the burden of proof

on an issue at trial, it must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that no genuine issue

of material fact remains, make a prima facie showing in support of its position on that issue.

See UA Local 343 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir.1994). 
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\4024\Order 1 re MSJ granted.wpd 2

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence establishing a prima facie case of breach of

contract by the defendant. Defendant does not oppose the evidence submitted and does not

set forth facts controverting plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ claim for overdue compensation is

corroborated by the reporting forms. Plaintiffs also correctly calculate the liquidated

damages, according to the CBA. While the CBA does not provide a value for the appropriate

interest rate and requires only “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs’ calculations of a 4%

interest rate and $180/hr billing fee, as well as 12 attorney work-hours expended on this

claim, are reasonable. 

After considering plaintiffs’ motion and defendant’s non-opposition, the Court

concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs are awarded $44,737.28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE