Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01776/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01776-4/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

---

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 Mr. Wang was erroneously sued as Joe Wong.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FLOOR

COVERING, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOE WANG, individually and

doing business as J W Carpet

& Flooring,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1776 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Before me is plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default

judgment against defendant Joe Wang, individually and doing

business as J W Carpet & Flooring.1 All parties have consented

to my jurisdiction for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c). 

On April 28, 2005, plaintiffs filed a complaint under §

301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29

U.S.C. § 185(a), and § 502 of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. The

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 7
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

complaint alleges that defendant violated a collective

bargaining agreement and certain trust agreements with Northern

California Floor Covering Industry Welfare Fund (“Trust Fund”). 

Compl. ¶ 1. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendant

was bound by a collective bargaining agreement with Carpet,

Linoleum & Soft Tile Workers, Local 12, that required defendant

to make contributions to the Trust Fund on behalf of

defendant’s employees. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs allege that

defendant is delinquent in its obligations to the Trust Fund,

and seek to recover employee benefit contributions, liquidated

damages and interest for the months of January through October

2005, totaling $14,095.75, and attorneys’ fees and costs in the

amount of $1,065.00. Although plaintiffs do not seek to audit

the books and records of defendant at this time, they seek to

reserve the right to audit in the future.

Plaintiffs effected service of process on May 24, 2005. 

Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise defend

the action until he appeared at the April 5th hearing to

contest some of the claimed damages. On October 21, 2005, upon

plaintiffs’ request, the Clerk of this court entered

defendant’s default under Rule 55(a). By its default,

defendant is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded averments

of the complaint except those as to the amount of damages. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d).

A court may not enter a default judgment against an

unrepresented minor, an incompetent person, or a person in

military service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App. U.S.C.

§ 521. Plaintiffs’ counsel has declared under penalty of

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 7
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

perjury that he has personal knowledge that Mr. Wang is not an

infant, incompetent person, or a person in military service. 

Carroll Supp. Decl. 

Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the court may enter a default

judgment against a party against whom default has been entered.

 The decision to grant or deny a default judgment under Rule

55(b) is within the discretion of the court. Eitel v. McCool,

782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). A formal hearing is

not required for a court to render a default judgment. Davis

v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981).

Section 1132(g) of ERISA provides that in an action to

enforce payment of delinquent contributions:

the court shall award the plan - 

(A) the unpaid contributions, 

(B) interest on the unpaid contributions, 

(C) an amount equal to the greater of –

(I) interest on the unpaid contributions, or

(ii)liquidated damages provided for under the

plan in an amount not in excess of 20

percent. . . of the amount determined by the

court under subparagraph (A), 

(D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). An award under section 1132(g)(2) is

mandatory if: (1) the employer is delinquent at the time the

action is filed; (2) the district court has entered a judgment

against the employer; and (3) the plan provides for such an

award. Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d

253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing Idaho Plumbers and Pipefitters

Health and Welfare Fund v. United Mechanical Contractors, Inc.,

875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 1989)). A mandatory award is

available under section 1132(g)(2) “notwithstanding the

defendant’s post-suit, pre-judgment payment of the delinquent

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 7
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

contributions.” Northwest Adm’rs, Inc., 104 F.3d at 258

(quoting Carpenters Amended and Restated Health Benefit Fund v.

John W. Ryan Constr. Co., Inc., 767 F.2d 1170, 1175 (5th Cir.

1985)); see also Iron Workers Dist. Council v. Hudson Steel

Fabricators & Erectors, Inc., 68 F.3d 1502, 1507 (2nd Cir.

1995); Bd. of Trs. of the Sheet Metal Workers v. Gen.

Facilities, Inc., 2003 WL 1790837, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 31,

2003)(citing Carpenters & Joiners Welfare Fund v. Gittleman

Corp., 857 F.2d 476, 478 (8th Cir. 1988)). “[A] plaintiff may

receive judgment for contributions which became due after the

lawsuit was filed and remain unpaid at the time of judgment.” 

Bd. of Trs. of the Sheet Metal Workers, 2003 WL 1790837, at *2. 

Plaintiffs have satisfied the statutory requirements and are

entitled to an award under section 1132(g). See Iron Workers

Dist. Council, 68 F.3d at 1507. 

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving damages through

testimony or written affidavit. To prove damages, plaintiffs

have submitted a declaration from Rose Cortez, the Supervisor

Representative of the administrators for the Trust Fund, and

custodian of the books and records for the Trust Fund. See

Cortez Decl. ¶ 1.

The Cortez Declaration establishes that defendant failed

to make contributions for the months of January through October

2005 to the Trust Fund, as required in the Northern California

Floor Covering Master Agreement and the Agreement and

Declaration of Trust. Since the filing of the complaint,

defendant has paid most of the delinquent amounts, but unpaid

contributions for the month of October 2005 remain in the

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

amount of $2,467.48. Cortez Decl., Exhs. 3 and 4; Cortez Supp.

Decl., Exh. 8 . IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs recover this

amount from defendant. 

Plaintiffs additionally sought $7,913.35 in liquidated

damages because the contributions for the months of January

through October 2005 were not received in a timely manner. 

Section 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii) provides that plaintiffs may recover

“liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount

not in excess of 20 percent.” See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C). 

Section II of the procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees

of the Trust Fund provides for liquidated damages at 20% once

the matter has been referred to legal counsel. See Cortez

Decl., Exh. 3. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are

entitled to liquidated damages on the unpaid or the delinquent

contributions for the months of January through October 2005. 

See Cortez Decl., Exh. 4. At the hearing, defendant contested

some of the damages, and plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their

claim for liquidated damages for the contributions paid on May

2, 2005 (January, February, and March), making the new total

$4,835.72. As the amount plaintiffs seek is permitted by

contract and statute, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs recover

$4,835.72 in liquidated damages from defendant.

Plaintiffs also request $307.87 in interest on the

contributions for the time they were delinquent and on the

unpaid contributions through January 17, 2006. Under section

1132(g)(2)(B), the Trust Fund may recover interest on unpaid

contributions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(B). Interest is

calculated based on the rate provided for under the plan, or,

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

if no rate is specified, the rate prescribed under section 6621

of Title 26. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Because the plan

does not specify a rate, plaintiffs ask for interest on the

delinquent or unpaid contributions at 5%, the rate prescribed

under section 6621 of Title 26. The interest rate of 5% is the

sum of 3% and 2.7%, the lowest rate charged by the Internal

Revenue Service for the months of January through October 2005.

 Plaintiffs have established they are entitled to $307.87 in

interest. Cortez Decl. ¶ 8. After the hearing, in view of the

decrease in liquidated damages, plaintiffs submitted a reduced

requested interest amount of $204.82. Plaintiffs’ motion to

recover this amount from defendant is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs further request that the court enter a judgment

reserving their rights to audit defendant for any periods not

previously audited, including for the same time period covered

in this default judgment, and to collect by subsequent legal

action any sum found to be due after an audit. For the reasons

cited in this court’s Report and Recommendation, in Board of

Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health v. Ace Roofing Company,

2005 WL 3497820, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2005), plaintiffs’

request for entry of such a judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiffs also seek $740.00 in attorneys’ fees and

$325.00 in costs. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the

action may be awarded if the Trust Fund receives a judgment in

its favor. See 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(2)(D). Plaintiffs’ counsel

calculates that through February 7, 2006, he spent in excess of

4 hours prosecuting this action at a rate of $185.00 per hour. 

Carroll Decl. ¶ 5. His time primarily consisted of preparing

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

the Ex Parte Application to Continue Case Management

Conference, the Case Management Statement, the Request that

Case Management Conference Go Off Calendar, the Motion for

Entry of Default with Supporting Declaration and Plaintiffs’

Motion for Default Judgment and Attorneys’ Fees. Id. This

time was reasonable and necessary to obtain a default judgment

in plaintiffs’ favor, and is therefore recoverable. See 29

U.S.C. 1132(g)(2)(D). The rate charged is reasonable in

relation to the work performed. See id. Plaintiffs also

incurred $325.00 in costs, consisting of filing fees and costs

associated with service of process. See Carroll Decl. ¶ 2. 

Plaintiffs’ request for $740.00 in attorneys’ fees and $325.00

in costs is reasonable and is HEREBY GRANTED.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be

entered in plaintiffs’ favor against defendant for a total

award of $8,573.02. This amount includes: $2,467.48 in unpaid

contributions, $204.82 in interest on unpaid or delinquent

contributions, $4,835.72 in liquidated damages, $740.00 in

attorneys’ fees and $325.00 in costs. 

Dated: April 25, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WONG\DEFJUD.ORD.consent.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01776-BZ Document 36 Filed 04/26/06 Page 7 of 7