Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04664/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04664-3/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

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD OVERAA as CHAIRMAN and

RONNELL SPIKES as CO-CHAIRMAN of

the BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA and

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE

CARPENTERS ANNUITY TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BRIAN GUERRERO, an individual, and LISA

GARFIELD, an individual,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04664 WHA

ORDER GRANTING ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this interpleader action, plaintiffs apply for entry of default judgment against

defendant Lisa Garfield pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, seeking a declaration

that Garfield is not a beneficiary under a contested pension plan. Review of the Eitel factors

favors entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the application for default judgment is

GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs Gerald Overaa and Ronnell Spikes are co-chairmen of the Boards of Trustees

for the Carpenters Pension and Annuity Trust Funds (“Carpenters Funds”). Carpenters Funds

Case 3:05-cv-04664-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

are employee-benefit plans covered under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29

U.S.C. § 1002.

Eduardo Guerrero died on February 2, 2005. Eduardo was a participant in the pension

and annuity plans of Carpenters Funds. The applicable plan and trust agreement required that

pension benefits payable to a participant who was married at the time of retirement had to be

paid to the spouse as a “qualified joint and survivor annuity.” According to the Carpenters

Funds’ records, Eduardo had provided a certificate showing that he had married defendant Lisa

Garfield on April 27, 1982. On Eduardo’s most recent enrollment forms, Garfield was listed as

Eduardo’s wife. Defendant Brian Guerrero, Eduardo’s son, was named as beneficiary on the

forms.

On April 1, 2005, Brian made a claim to Carpenters Funds for the pension and annuity

benefits from his father’s plan. Brian provided a marriage certificate for Eduardo and a woman

named Machelle Tappin issued on December 1978—a certificate predating that for Eduardo’s

marriage to Garfield. According to Brian, the marriage of Eduardo and Tappin was never

legally terminated. Tappin executed a waiver of any spousal benefits that might be due. 

Garfield has not executed such a waiver.

The claims of Brian, as named beneficiary, and Garfield, as listed spouse, were thus

conflicting and adverse. The Carpenters Funds were unable to determine the validity of either

claim. The Carpenters Funds have indicated no preference to which person receives the

benefits and merely seek resolution by this action of the rightful beneficiary. Accordingly,

plaintiffs filed their interpleader complaint on November 15, 2005 pursuant to FRCP 22. 

Plaintiffs deposited $73,000 with the Court and requested resolution of which of the two

purported beneficiaries were entitled to that money. Plaintiffs also sought to have any potential

liability to the non-beneficiary discharged.

Both Brian and Garfield accepted service of the summons and complaint. Brian

answered the complaint in December 2005. Garfield, however, failed to file a responsive

pleading within the requisite time period. Default against Garfield, therefore, was entered by

the Clerk of the Court on March 7, 2006. Service was more than adequate to give Garfield

Case 3:05-cv-04664-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

notice of these proceedings. Plaintiffs now move for entry of default judgment against Garfield. 

Brian has joined plaintiffs’ motion.

ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a party can apply to the court for entry

of judgment by default. “The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a

discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The following

factors are considered:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint,

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a

dispute concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). For the following reasons, these

factors favor entry of default judgment in this case.

After entry of default, well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true,

except as to the amount of damages. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir.

2002). The merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims and the sufficiency of the complaint are thus

considered in tandem.

Based on the documentation obtained by Carpenters Funds, there is a strong likelihood

that Brian will be deemed the beneficiary. Accepting the fact, as we must for purposes of

FRCP 55, that Eduardo’s marriage to Tappin was never legally terminated, Eduardo’s marriage

to Garfield would be invalid. Garfield would thus lose her preferred status as joint-spousal

beneficiary. The benefits would then pass to Brian as Eduardo’s named beneficiary. The likely

outcome on the merits, therefore, is that Brian is entitled to the benefits.

This order finds that the remaining Eitel factors likewise favor entry of default judgment

against Garfield. To deny plaintiff’s application would leave plaintiff without a way to resolve

this dispute. Morever, Garfield has refused to litigate this action here after being properly

served with the complaint and summons. Since Garfield never filed an answer to the complaint

or appeared at the hearing, it is unclear whether there is a possibility of dispute concerning the

material facts. There is no evidence that Garfield’s failure to respond was the result of

Case 3:05-cv-04664-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

4

excusable neglect. Although federal policy may favor a decision on the merits, FRCP 55(b)

permits entry of default judgment in situations such as this, where the defendant has refused to

litigate. On balance, the Court concludes that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of default

judgment against Garfield.

Accordingly this order holds:

1. Plaintiffs are discharged from liability for all actual or potential claims against them

by Garfield with respect to the $73,000 deposited with the Court; and

2. Garfield is deemed to have no right to payment of any pension or annuity benefits

from the Carpenters Funds based on her purported spousal relationship with Eduardo.

3. Brian is entitled to the $73,000 deposited with the Court as Eduardo’s proper

beneficiary.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ application for entry of default judgment is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04664-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/26/06 Page 4 of 4