Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02386/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02386-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1131 E.R.I.S.A. Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

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 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

PLASTERERS HEALTH AND 

WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DAVIDSON PLASTERING, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-2386-PJH 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ryu’s Report and Recommendation Re: 

plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, as well as plaintiffs’ objections to the report. The 

court finds the report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect 

other than the amount of contractual liquidated damages, as explained below. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is GRANTED. 

The report and recommendation first sets forth the three categories of damages 

sought by plaintiffs: (1) contributions that became due before the suit was filed but were 

paid after the filing of the action, (2) contributions that became due after the suit was filed 

and were paid before the ruling on this motion, and (3) contributions that were paid, but 

were paid late, before the filing of the action. 

The report recommended that statutory liquidated damages be awarded for 

category (1) in the amount of $8,258.26. See Dkt. 25 at 9. As to categories (2) and (3), 

the report recommended that no statutory liquidated damages be awarded, but instead, 

Case 4:15-cv-02386-PJH Document 28 Filed 05/19/16 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 

that liquidated damages be awarded as a matter of contract. Id. at 9. As a result, rather 

than receiving the 20% liquidated damages award provided for by statute, plaintiffs would 

receive a 10% liquidated damages award provided for by the parties’ contract. In the 

report, the court calculated a 10% liquidated damages award by taking the total 

requested liquidated damages award of $108,394.00, subtracting the $8,258.26 

mentioned above, then dividing the remainder by two (on the assumption that the 

remainder represented a 20% liquidated damages award for the contributions in 

categories (2) and (3)). 

Plaintiffs filed objections to the latter calculation, arguing that for the months of 

October and November 2013, January through June 2014, August through December 

2014, and January through February 2015, the liquidated damages were already 

calculated at 10% in plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, so they did not need to be 

divided in two by the court. In contrast, the requested liquidated damages for the months 

of June through October 2015 were calculated at 20% in the default judgment motion, 

making the court’s division correct in those instances. Even though plaintiffs’ original 

motion papers did not make this clear, it has since submitted evidence showing the 

contribution amounts in those months, and indeed, the originally-requested liquidated 

damages for the months of October and November 2013, January through June 2014, 

August through December 2014, and January through February 2015 do represent a 

10% award. See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. A, B. Accordingly, the court sustains plaintiffs’ objection, 

and the contractual liquidated damages figure will be adjusted to $83,678.32 (which 

represents a 10% award for October and November 2013, January through June 2014, 

August through December 2014, and January through February 2015), less the amount 

already paid by defendants ($15,100.62), resulting in a total of $68,577.70 in liquidated 

damages for categories (2) and (3). See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. B, Dkt. 24-1, ¶ 10. When 

combined with the $8,258.26 from category (1), it results in a total liquidated damages 

award of $76,835.95. 

When combined with the other amounts recommended in the report ($12,135.82 in 

Case 4:15-cv-02386-PJH Document 28 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

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 

inte

$9

Da

erest, $7,65

7,107.77, a

IT IS S

ated: May 1

53.00 in att

and the cou

SO ORDER

19, 2016 

torneys’ fee

urt hereby a

RED. 

3

es, and $48

awards that 

__

PH

Un

83.00 in cos

 amount to 

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

sts), it resul

plaintiffs. 

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ts in a total

__________

udge 

l of 

______

Case 4:15-cv-02386-PJH Document 28 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3