Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_20-cv-00087/USCOURTS-akd-3_20-cv-00087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ALASKA LABORERS EMPLOYERS 

RETIREMENT TRUST, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

OLHAUSEN CONSTRUCTION AND 

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00087-SLG

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

Before the Court at Docket 1 is Plaintiffs’ Application for Entry of Judgment 

on Confession, to which is attached an affidavit in support.

1

 Also attached are a 

Confession of Judgment Without Action and a Settlement Agreement and 

Agreement not to Execute, each signed by Defendant and dated December 6, 

2019.

2

 No filing fee was paid to initiate this action. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter 

judgment against Defendant without filing a complaint, paying the filing fee, and 

obtaining a summons and filing proof of service thereof, or filing a waiver of service.

A confession of judgment is “an ancient legal device by which the debtor 

consents in advance to the holder’s obtaining a judgment without notice or hearing, 

and possibly even with the appearance, on the debtor’s behalf, of an attorney 

1 Docket 1-1.

2 Docket 1-2 (Confession of Judgment); 1-3 (Settlement Agreement).

Case 3:20-cv-00087-SLG Document 2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 3:20-cv-00087-SLG, Alaska Laborers Emp’rs Ret. Tr., et al. v. Olhausen Constr. & 

Mgmt. Co.

Notice of Intent to Dismiss

Page 2 of 4

designated by the holder.”3 In effect, a confession of judgment constitutes a waiver 

of the debtor’s constitutional right to procedural due process, which includes the 

right “to notice and hearing prior to a civil judgment.”

4

 The Supreme Court has 

held that a such a device is not facially invalid and may be enforced so long as

there is “‘clear and convincing evidence’ that the written waiver [of the right to 

procedural due process] was ‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made.’”5 This 

is a factual inquiry.6

However, while several states, including Alaska, provide for the entry of 

judgments on confession,7“[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . make no 

reference to such a device.”8 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, “[a] 

civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” The advisory 

committee notes explain that “[t]his rule governs the commencement of all

actions.”9 Plaintiffs in this case did not file a complaint to initiate this action, 

3 D.H. Overmyer Co., Inc. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 176 (1976).

4

Id. at 1185, 187–88 (characterizing confession of judgment entered under Ohio law to be a 

waiver of 14th Amendment due process).

5 Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Aaronian, 93 F.3d 636, 640 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Overmyer, 405 

U.S. at 185–86).

6

Id. (citing Overmyer, 405 U.S. at 188).

7 See, e.g., AS 09.30.050; Alaska R. Civ. P. 57(b)–(c).

8 Boosalis Options, LP v. Farnbacher Loles Motorsports, LLC, No. C 09-80316 WHA, 2010 WL 

335651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2010). 

9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 advisory committee’s note to 1937 adoption (emphasis added).

Case 3:20-cv-00087-SLG Document 2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:20-cv-00087-SLG, Alaska Laborers Emp’rs Ret. Tr., et al. v. Olhausen Constr. & 

Mgmt. Co.

Notice of Intent to Dismiss

Page 3 of 4

consistent with the Federal Rules, but rather filed the instant Application for Entry 

of Judgment on Confession. Faced with a nearly identical situation, the district 

court for the Northern District of California concluded:

The proper procedure in this case would have been for plaintiff to file 

a complaint to enforce the settlement agreement. Then plaintiff 

should have served the complaint with a summons on defendants. If 

they were to appear, they would have to explain why the settlement 

agreement should not be enforced.10

The Court has found no case in which a federal court has entered a judgment on

confession that was not preceded by the filing of a complaint.11 And the Court will 

not enter a judgment without service of process of the complaint on the defendant 

or a valid waiver of process that comports with the Supreme Court’s holding in 

10 Boosalis Options, LP, 2010 WL 33561, at *2; accord J.D. Holdings, LLC v. BD Ventures, LLC, 

766 F. Supp. 2d 109, 113 (D.D.C. 2011) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not refer to 

this device and courts have found that confession judgments are not authorized in Federal 

courts to circumvent the filing of a complaint, summons, and service.”); Fed. Deposit Insur. 

Corp. v. Yarrington, No. 13-cv-89-S, 2013 WL 11866198, at *1 (D. Wyo. June 6, 2013) (“Federal 

law does not provide for judgment by confession, and therefore Federal courts have not 

authorized confession judgments to circumvent the filing of a complaint, summons, and 

service.”).

11 See J.D. Holdings, LLC, 766 F. Supp. 2d at 113–14 (entering judgment on confession where 

“plaintiff filed a complaint and has tried to over a year to no avail to obtain judgment from the 

defendants); Alland v. Consumers Credit Corp., 54 F.R.D. 252, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), rev’d on 

other grounds 476 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1973) (entering judgment by confession in action initiated 

by complaint after finding waiver of due process rights was “the result of arms-length bargaining 

between the parties”); Yarrington, 2013 WL 11866198, at *1–3 (exercising federal question 

jurisdiction to enter confession judgment pursuant to settlement agreement where action was 

initiated with complaint); cf. Retail Clerks Union Joint Pension Tr. v. Freedom Food Ctr., Inc., 

938 F.2d 136, 137, 139 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion to vacate entry of 

stipulated judgment); cf. Genesis Fluid Sols., Ltd. v. Eagle N. Am., Inc., No. 10-MC-80231-JF, 

2011 WL 1193571, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2011) (granting Rule 60(b) motion for relief from 

judgment entered by confession and noting that “[u]nder the Federal Rules, a party seeking to 

enforce a judgment by confession must file a complaint under [FRCP] 3, and serve a summons 

under [FRCP 4]”).

Case 3:20-cv-00087-SLG Document 2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:20-cv-00087-SLG, Alaska Laborers Emp’rs Ret. Tr., et al. v. Olhausen Constr. & 

Mgmt. Co.

Notice of Intent to Dismiss

Page 4 of 4

Overmyer. Nor will the Court allow a plaintiff to initiate an action without payment 

of the appropriate filing fee or filing an application to waive that fee pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.

In light of the foregoing, the Court gives Plaintiffs notice of its intent to 

dismiss this action without prejudice unless within 21 days from the date of this 

order, Plaintiffs file a response to this notice that demonstrates that the Court 

should act on their Application for Entry of Judgment on Confession as filed.12 If 

Plaintiffs do not respond within 21 days, the Court will dismiss this action 

thereafter without further notice.

DATED this 7th day of May, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 Due to the coronavirus pandemic, by Miscellaneous General Order 20-11, the District of Alaska 

imposed a stay on all civil matters for 30 days, effective March 30, 2020. The District of Alaska 

recently extended that stay until June 1, 2020. See Miscellaneous General Order 20-13. The 

undersigned judge, presiding in this matter, hereby lifts the stay in this case. See Miscellaneous 

General Order 20-13 at 5–6.

Case 3:20-cv-00087-SLG Document 2 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 4