Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01812/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01812-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAY AREA PAINTERS AND TAPERS 

PENSION TRUST FUND, AND ITS 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SLK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01812-PJH 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE WESTMORE'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 39

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Westmore's Report and 

Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 39) against 

dissolved corporate defendant SLK, Inc., as well as individual defendants JC Jackson, 

and Shirley Jackson (collectively, “defendants”). Defendants failed to file any objections 

to the report. The court finds the report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough.

Accordingly, subject to the clarification concerning plaintiff’s service of process upon 

defendant SLK, Inc.'s and the reduction to plaintiff's attorney's fee award noted 

immediately below, the court adopts the report in full.

SERVICE OF PROCESS

The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that a district court has an “affirmative duty” to 

ensure jurisdiction prior to its entry of a default judgment and that a judgment entered 

without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th 

Cir. 1999).

Here, Judge Westmore determined that defendants were served by substituted 

service when plaintiff’s process server “hand delivered a copy of the summons and 

initiating documents to an adult male at the residence of J. Jackson, the managing officer 

Case 4:19-cv-01812-PJH Document 42 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of Defendant SLK, and S. Jackson, the president/CEO of Defendant SLK.” Dkt. 39 at 5. 

Judge Westmore further noted that plaintiffs subsequently sent “[c]opies of the summons 

and initiating documents . . . by first class mail to each Defendant.” Id. With respect to 

individual defendants JC and Shirly Jackson, such process clearly satisfies Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) controls service of process upon 

corporations. In relevant part, that rule provides that service upon a corporation is proper 

“by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or 

general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service 

of process and--if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires--by 

also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B). 

Here, the court finds that because plaintiffs effected substituted service upon 

individual defendants JC and Shirley Jackson, such substituted service necessarily 

constituted service upon defendant SLK, Inc. under Rule 4(h)(1)(B) by virtue of the 

individual defendants’ ownership and designated positions as officers of defendant SLK, 

Inc. Such finding is warranted in the limited circumstances where an agent of a dissolved 

corporation (who is otherwise contemplated for service under Rule 4(h)(1)(B)) is not 

readily identifiable and service has been effected upon those ultimately in control of such 

dissolved entity. With this clarification, the court adopts Judge Westmore’s service of 

process finding in full.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD

Judge Westmore awarded plaintiffs $11,250.50 in attorney’s fees. Dkt. 39 at 13-

14. When awarding that amount, Judge Westmore relied upon plaintiff’s counsel’s 

declaration for a summary of the tasks completed by herself and each of her co-counsel 

and paralegals. Id. Despite bearing “the burden of submitting detailed time records 

justifying the hours claimed to have been expended,” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 

796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 808 F.2d 1373 

(9th Cir. 1987), plaintiffs failed to provide any of the timekeepers’ underlying billing 

Case 4:19-cv-01812-PJH Document 42 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

entries. The court finds that the declaration’s summary of the work performed per 

timekeeper, when combined with the number of hours billed to this matter per such 

timekeeper, effectively amounts to five block bills. Block billing makes it almost 

impossible for the court to scrutinize the reasonableness of the hours expended. Given 

such deficiency, the court will reduce Judge Westmore’s recommended $11,250.50

attorney’s fees award by 10 percent. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)

(“Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the 

award accordingly.”). The court therefore awards plaintiffs $10,125.45 in attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the specifications noted above, the court adopts Judge Westmore’s 

report and GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. Accordingly, the court awards 

plaintiffs’ $216,299.95, comprising $157,251 in unpaid withdrawal liability, $31,450.20 in 

liquidated damages, $13,074.78 in interest accrued between June 1, 2018 and the date 

of this order at $21.54 per day,1 $10,125.45 in attorney’s fees, and $4,398.52 in costs. 

Additionally, consistent with Judge Westmore’s recommended injunctive relief, the court 

orders that defendants provide the information requested by plaintiffs to determine 

whether there are trades or businesses under common control with defendant SLK, Inc.

and whether any fraudulent transfers or improper transactions to evade or avoid 

withdrawal liability have occurred. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties and 

subject matter to enforce the injunction and to entertain further motions for money 

judgments in the event such information reveals any improper transaction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2020

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

1 The court also corrects a minor mistake in the conclusion of the report that notes the 

daily interest amount as $49.51. Dkt. 39 at 15. As previously detailed throughout the

report, such amount is properly noted as $21.54 (i.e., ($157,251 x 0.05)/365). 

Case 4:19-cv-01812-PJH Document 42 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3