Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00187-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUSTEES OF VALLEY CARPET LAYERS

INDUSTRY TRUST FUNDS, 

No. CIV S-07-0187 GEB GGH

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MACIZO CONTRACT FLOORING, INC., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Defendant. 

___________________________/

Plaintiff’s amended motion for entry of default judgment against defendant

Macizo Flooring, Inc., filed June 12, 2007, was vacated from this court’s calendar for July 26,

2007, and taken under submission. Upon review of the motion and the supporting documents,

and good cause appearing, the court issues the following findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2007, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this action against

defendant Macizo Flooring, Inc., alleging defendant had failed to pay contributions to plaintiff in

violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§

1132 and 1145, and the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and for failing to

Case 2:07-cv-00187-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 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

2

submit “remittance reports” wherein defendant was required to calculate obligated contributions

to the plan. The summons and complaint were personally served on defendant Macizo Flooring

Inc., on February 12, 2007. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main

Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal

jurisdiction). Defendant has failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this action. On

March 7, 2007, the clerk entered default against defendant Macizo Flooring, Inc.

The instant motion for default judgment and supporting papers were served by

mail on defendant at its last known address. Defendant filed no opposition to the motion for

entry of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the amount of

$28,862.60 which includes $2,897 in attorneys’ fees, $432.50 in costs, $21,278.58 in unpaid

principal contributions, and $4,254.52 in liquidated damages which is 20 percent of the unpaid

principal contribution.

DISCUSSION

Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the

complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir.

1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which

relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The

declarations filed in support of the application for default judgment also supports the finding that

plaintiff is entitled to the damages and fees and costs requested. There are no policy

considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 

In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that

plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in

the total amount of $28,862.60, which reflects unpaid contributions, liquidated damages,

attorneys’ fees and costs.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-00187-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/30/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Trustees187.def.wpd

Case 2:07-cv-00187-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 3