Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01399/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01399-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

U

nite

d

State

s

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 1

 The examples provided below are illustrative only and not exhaustive.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TOTTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HAWORTH IRRIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-1399 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE BRIEFING AND EVIDENCE

RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 53)

Previously, the Court issued an order instructing Plaintiffs to provide supplemental evidence

in support of their motion for default judgment by July 8, 2005. Although Plaintiffs did not file this

evidence until July 21, 2005, the Court shall consider the evidence in the interest of justice and in the

absence of any prejudice to Defendants.

Having considered Plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence, the Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to

provide further briefing and/or evidence providing exact and detailed calculations to demonstrate

how they arrived at the amount of unpaid contributions. Based on the Court’s review of the

supplemental evidence, there seem to be problems with the final sums reached by Plaintiffs

regarding unpaid contributions.

For example1:

Exhibit E of the Bonida declaration indicates that, for the year 1999, there were 2,261 hours

accumulated, and all in December 1999. See Bonida Decl., Ex. E. However, based on the Court’s

Case 4:03-cv-01399-CW Document 64 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

2

review of the Quality Landscaping invoices, hours were accumulated throughout the various months

of the year. This is important because, from January 1999 to June 27, 1999, the total fringe benefit

rate was $7.03 per hour, see id., Ex. A; Bonida Supp. Decl., Ex. A, whereas from June 28, 1999,

through December 1999, the total fringe benefit rate was $7.44 per hour. There is a similar problem

for the year 2000. See Bonida Decl., Ex. E (indicating that, for the year 2000, there were 4,983 hours

accumulated, and all in December 2000).

Exhibit E of the Bonida declaration indicates that, for the year 1999, there was a total of

2,261 hours accumulated. See id. However, this does not appear to match the number of hours

reflected in the Quality Landscaping invoices for 1999.

Exhibit E of the Bonida declaration indicates that there was a total of 6,636.5 hours

accumulated for 2001. See id. Unfortunately, the exhibit does not separate out the hours

accumulated from Quality Landscaping and the hours accumulated from the Salinas High School

District, which makes it difficult for the Court to determine whether the total number of hours for

2001 as calculated by Plaintiffs is correct. Furthermore, Exhibit E of the Bonida declaration

indicates, e.g., that no hours were accumulated from March to May 2001 and that 5,127.5 hours were

accumulated in December 2001, but that does not seem in accord with the invoices submitted by

Plaintiffs. Again, this is important because different fringe benefit rates apply to different time

periods. In addition, Plaintiffs calculated at least some of the hours done for the Salinas Union High

School District using estimates; however, Plaintiffs have provided no authority as to whether they

may satisfy their burden of proof regarding damages with estimates only. Moreover, even if

Plaintiffs could use estimates, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how the estimates they used were

reasonable. See Bonida Supp. Decl. ¶ 9 (“I have estimated 33% of total costs are attributable to

labor.”).

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the August 24, 2005, hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion

for default judgment and orders Plaintiffs to provide exact and detailed calculations supporting their

claim for unpaid contributions. Plaintiffs should do the same for any other element of damages

requested (e.g., interest under ERISA, liquidated damages under ERISA, post-judgment interest). 

Supplemental briefing and/or evidence shall be filed and served by August 19, 2005.

Case 4:03-cv-01399-CW Document 64 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

3

In concluding, the Court emphasizes that it is Plaintiffs’ burden to prove their damages and

that it is not for the Court to guess at how Plaintiffs arrived at their final damages calculation. Nor is

it for the Court to do all of the calculations independently without specific guidance as to how

Plaintiffs determined their final damages. Exhibit E of the Bonida declaration is insufficient. The

Court suggests that Plaintiffs may be able to assist the Court by providing it with tables or charts

showing the exact and detailed calculations so that the Court is not burdened a third time in trying to

ascertain the proper amount of damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005

_________________________

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01399-CW Document 64 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3