Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01694/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01694-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA GLAZIERS,

ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND GLASS

WORKERS PENSION PLAN; JOINT BOARD OF

TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND

GLASS WORKERS PENSION PLAN; and GENE

MASSEY as Trustee; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

GLAZIERS ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND

GLASS WORKERS WELFARE PLAN; JOINT

BOARD of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND

GLASS WORKERS WELFARE PLAN; and

DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER as Trustee; GLAZIERS

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT RETIREMENT PLAN;

JOINT BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the INDIVIDUAL

ACCOUNT RETIREMENT PLAN; and JAMES

GRAHAM as Trustee; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 APPRENTICE AND

JOURNEYMAN TRAINING TRUST FUND; JOINT

BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL 16

APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN TRAINING

TRUST FUND; and ALFRED SKIP WELTZ as

Trustee; I.U.P.A.T. UNION AND INDUSTRY

NATIONAL PENSION FUND; JOINT BOARD OF

TRUSTEES of the I.U.P.A.T. UNION AND

INDUSTRY NATIONAL PENSION FUND; and

JAMES WILLIAMS and RALPH TRALLO as coTrustees; GLASS AND GLAZING INDUSTRY

TRUST FUND; and ALFRED SKIP WELTZ as

Trustee; DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 16,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND

ALLIED TRADES, GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL

METAL AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION

1621,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AB CLINE GLASS INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-1694 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case 3:05-cv-01694-WHA Document 16 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

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

2

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs have applied for entry of default judgment against defendant AB Cline Glass, 

Inc., which has never appeared in this ERISA action. Review of the Eitel factors favors entry of

default judgment. Plaintiffs’ application is thus GRANTED and defendant is ORDERED TO PAY A

TOTAL OF $65,857.25 to plaintiffs.

STATEMENT

On April 25, 2005, plaintiffs filed this ERISA action seeking enforcement of a collective

bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs seek an award for unpaid benefit contributions for the months 

of October and November 2004, and May through July 2005, as well as liquidated damages and

interest on delinquent contribution payments incurred thereon and on late contributions for the

months of August 2002 through September 2004, December 2004 through April 2005, and

continuing to the time of judgment. For their efforts, plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees and 

costs.

To support their claims for relief, plaintiffs allege the following facts. Defendant 

entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass

Workers Local Union No. 1621, which required that contributions be paid on behalf of covered

employees to the funds named therein. The contract binds defendant to the terms and 

conditions of the agreements of each fund. Under the contract, defendant agrees to submit a

monthly report of hours worked by its employees and to make regular contributions to the funds

and plans thereon. Plaintiffs’ funds rely on self-reporting by the employer. Under the terms of

the agreement, failure to make payment by the 15th of the month in which the contribution is 

due results in liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in

connection with the delinquency. 

Defendant has failed to pay contributions due for October and November 2004, and May

through July 2005. Defendant has also failed to pay contributions due in a timely manner for 

the months of August 2002 through September 2004, and December 2004 through April 2005. 

On April 25, 2005, plaintiffs filed the instant action. On April 27, defendant was served with 

the summons and complaint. Defendant did not serve plaintiffs with a responsive pleading 

Case 3:05-cv-01694-WHA Document 16 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

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

3

within twenty days as required by FRCP 12(a)(1)(A). The Clerk of the Court entered 

defendant’s default on May 20. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the instant motion for entry of 

default judgment on July 28, seeking an order requiring defendant to pay $52,004.69. On 

August 29, plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration indicating the additional damages and

attorney’s fees incurred since the motion was filed (Stafford Supp. Decl.). Plaintiffs presently 

seek an order requiring defendant to pay $65,873.25.

ANALYSIS

Under FRCP 55(b)(2), a party can apply to the court for entry of judgment by default. 

Whether to grant a motion for default judgment is within the discretion of the trial court. In the

Ninth Circuit, a court is to consider the following factors in exercising this discretion:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, 

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a

dispute concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was 

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). For the reasons that follow, these factors

favor entry of default judgment in this case.

1. MERITS OF SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS AND 

SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT.

After entry of default, the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint regarding liability 

are taken as true, except as to the amount of damages. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 

899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). The merits of plaintiffs’ substantive claims and the sufficiency of the

complaint are thus considered in tandem. This order finds that the Eitel factors weigh in favor 

of entry of default judgment.

Plaintiffs here assert a claim for unpaid contributions under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1145. To

recover, plaintiffs must show that: (1) the fund is a multi-employer plan as defined by 29 U.S.C.

1002(37), (2) defendant is an employer obligated to contribute to the plan under the terms of a

collective bargaining agreement, and (3) defendant failed to contribute in accordance with the 

plan or agreement. In this case, plaintiffs allege facts to support each of the above elements.

Plaintiffs’ fund is a multi-employer plan within the meaning of ERISA (Stafford Decl. 

Case 3:05-cv-01694-WHA Document 16 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

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

4

Exh. A). Defendant agreed in its written collective bargaining agreement with the union to 

make monthly payments of trust fund contributions (id. at Exh. A-6, A-8). Thereafter, 

defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay such contributions for the 

months of October and November 2004, and May through July 2005 (Luna Decl. Exh. A; 

Stafford Supp. Decl.). Defendant also breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay 

such contributions due in a timely manner for the months of August 2002 through September 

2004, and December 2004 through April 2005 (ibid.). 

2. THE REMAINING EITEL FACTORS.

This order finds that the remaining Eitel factors likewise favor entry of default 

judgment. To deny plaintiffs’ application would leave plaintiffs without a remedy. Moreover,

defendant has refused to litigate this action here after being properly served with the complaint 

and summons. It is unlikely that the default was the result of excusable neglect. Although 

federal policy may favor a decision on the merits, FRCP 55(b) permits entry of default 

judgment in situations, such as this, where defendants refuse to litigate.

3. THE DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g), when judgment in favor of a plan is awarded in an action 

to enforce Section 1145, a court may award the plan unpaid contributions, liquidated damages 

and interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and any other legal or equitable relief 

the court deems appropriate.

Plaintiffs seek an order requiring defendant to pay $35,204.43 in unpaid contributions,

$24,674.05 in liquidated damages and $1,198.27 in interest. Plaintiffs have submitted 

declarations with appended exhibits supporting the calculation of damages (Luna Decl. Exh. A, 

B, C; Stafford Decl. Exh. B-10). Plaintiffs compute post-litigation liquidated damages at 20% 

and pre-litigation damages at 10% (Luna Decl. Exh. A; Stafford Decl. Exh. A-6, B-10). 

Plaintiffs compute interest on unpaid contributions at the trustees’ reasonably determined rate 

of 7% per annum from April 1, 2002 to October 31, 2002, 6% per annum from November 1, 

2002 to December 31, 2004 and 5% thereafter in accordance with the Trust’s policies (ibid.). 

This Court accepts plaintiffs’ calculations of unpaid contributions, liquidated damages and 

Case 3:05-cv-01694-WHA Document 16 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

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 * Paragraph 7 of the Stafford declaration indicates that Stafford has worked on the matter for 2.6

hours and bills at $160.00 per hour. Thus, Stafford’s statement that her total fees are $432.00 is incorrect. 

Her fees are $416.00.

5

interest based on the record.

Plaintiffs also request an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,525.50 and costs 

of $271.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed declarations describing the tasks performed in this 

action, the billing rate for such tasks and the costs incurred (Stafford Decl. ¶ 7; Stafford Supp. 

Decl. ¶ 6). This request is not fully supported by the record because one declaration contains a 

minor calculation error.* The correct attorney’s fees award is $4,509.50.

CONCLUSION

For good cause shown, this order GRANTS plaintiffs’ entry of default judgment as to

defendant AB Cline Glass, Inc., who shall:

1. Pay past contributions of $35,204.43;

2. Pay liquidated damages of $24,674.05;

3. Pay interest of $1198.27;

4. Pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,509.50;

5. Pay costs in the amount of $271.00.

Judgment shall be entered accordingly for a total of $65,857.25. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01694-WHA Document 16 Filed 09/08/05 Page 5 of 5