Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01250/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01250-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MORENO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASRIK, INC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-1250 MJJ (JL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(docket # 10 )

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Jose Moreno, as Chairman, and Larry Totten, as Co-Chairman, of the

Boards of Trustees for the Laborers Trust Funds listed in the caption (collectively,

"plaintiffs"), brought a Motion for Default Judgment. The Trust Funds are multi-employer,

employee benefit plans within the meaning of §§ 3(3) and 3(37) of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(3) and 1002(37). Plaintiffs

filed their Complaint against defendant CASRIK, INC., pursuant to §§ 502(a)(3), 515 and

502(g)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3),1145 and 1132(g)(2), seeking a money

judgment for the amount of unpaid contributions, interest thereon, and liquidated damages

owed to the Trust Funds and related costs and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this

action.

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 2 of 13

Plaintiffs also sued defendant JOEL CARONE pursuant to §§ 502(a)(2), 409,

515 and 502(8)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S .C. §§ 1132(a)(2),1109,1145 and 1132(8)(2), seeking

to hold him jointly and severally liable for the same money judgment.

The Complaint was filed on March 28, 2005 . Defendants CASRIK, INC., and JOEL

CARONE were both served with the summons and Complaint on April 22, 2005. Neither

defendant filed any response to the Complaint, and their defaults were entered on June 22,

2005.

Based on the information stated in the declarations of Makita Wright and of Bruce K.

Leigh in support of the motion for default judgment, it is reasonably believed that defendant

Joel Carone is neither an infant nor incompetent person nor in military or uniformed service

or otherwise exempt under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (as amended

from time to time) or under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003.

Plaintiffs requested that the Court issue a judgment in their favor for the following

sums: $17,509.66 for delinquent employer contributions remaining due as of September

28, 2005, from contributions earned from November 2004 through March 2005; $4,524.20

for prejudgment interest accrued as of October 25, 2005, on unpaid balances of

contributions due plaintiff trust funds for the contribution months November 2003 through

March 2005; $1,500.00 for liquidated damages for delinquencies from November 2003

through January 2005; $434.24 for costs incurred to date, and $6,210.00 for attorneys fees

incurred to date in bringing this action. Thus plaintiffs seek judgment in total

(including employer contributions, interest, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys fees)

for $30,178.10.

In addition, plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to submit to

an audit of their business records for the period of November 2003 to the present to

determine the full amount of employer contributions due and owing to the plaintiff trust

funds. Finally, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that, pursuant to the terms of the

applicable trust agreements, plaintiffs are entitled to postjudgment interest, costs and

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 3 of 13

reasonable attorneys fees incurred in enforcing both the money judgment and the

mandatory injunction until the judgment is satisfied.

A. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Default Judgment

After the entry of a default by the court clerk, the court may enter a judgment of

default pursuant to FRCP 55(b)(2). See Roofers Local 81 v. Wedge Roofing, Inc., 811

F.Supp. 1398, 1401 (N .D .Cal.1992). FRCP § 55(d) states, in pertinent part :

“Judgment by default may be entered as follows: . . . (2) In all other cases the party

entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court therefore; . . . If the party

against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party . 

. . shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days

prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the court to enter

judgment or carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the

amount of damages . . . the court may conduct such hearings or order such

references as it deems necessary and proper. ‘

The decision to grant or to deny a request for default judgment lies within the sound

discretion of the district court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F .2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). 

When exercising this discretion, a district court is guided by the following factors: (1) the

merits of the plaintiff's claim; (2) the sufficiency of the complaint; (3) the amount of money

at stake in the action; (4) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (5) the possibility of a

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect;

and (7) the strong policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring a decision on the

merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F .2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). See generally Shop

Ironworkers Local 79 v. United Safe, Inc. WL129538 (N.D. Cal. 1999) No . C-98-3737

VRW.

There is no reason to believe there is any dispute of the facts contained in the

Complaint. There is no evidence that defendants' failure to respond to the complaint or

participate in this proceeding is due to excusable neglect.

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 4 of 13

While policy normally favors a resolution on the merits of a dispute, that policy is

outweighed here by the need of plaintiffs (acting on behalf of the employee benefit plans

and their participants and beneficiaries) for a prompt resolution of this matter. Plaintiffs

have already been prejudiced by defendants' failure to pay employer contributions that

would provide pension, health and welfare, apprenticeship and training, and vacation and

holiday benefits to their employees and to participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The

strong policy favoring efficient resolution of collections actions under ERISA must be given

great deference. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gerber

Truck Serv., 870 F. 2d 1148, 1152 (7th Cir. 1989).

 B. Casrik, Inc., is liable to plaintiffs under §§ 515 and 502(g)(2) of ERISA and 

 under applicable collective bargaining agreements and trust agreements 

for unpaid employer contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and for

plaintiffs' costs, and attorneys fees incurred in this action.

Section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, provides : "every employer who is

obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or

under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent

with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan

or such agreement . "

As plaintiffs' Complaint alleges, the Trust Funds are multi-employer plans as defined

by § 3(37)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37)(A). As shown by Exhibit A to Makita Wright's

declaration (see, also, ¶3-5 of her declaration), for all times relevant to this action

defendant Casrik, Inc., by its President Joel Carone, has been signatory to a Memorandum

Agreement binding it to the Laborers Master Agreement for 2002-2006 and the Trust

Agreements for the Laborers Trust Funds, and so has been obligated to pay employer

contributions to plaintiffs' trust funds.

Section 502(g)(2) of ERISA, 29 U .S .C . § 1132(g)(2), provides:"In any action under

this title by a fiduciary for or on behalf of a plan to enforce § 515 in which a judgment in

favor of the plan is awarded, the court shall award the plan -

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 4 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 5 of 13

(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 [the unpaid contributions], [and]

(D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the defendant.”

As shown in Exhibit C to Ms . Wright's declaration, consistent with § 502(g)(2) of

ERISA, Section 28A (last paragraph) of the Laborers Master Labor Agreement imposes on

delinquent employers liability for interest on unpaid employer contributions and for

liquidated damages. If payment in full is not received by the 25th day after the month

contributions were earned, the payment is delinquent (Leigh Decl. At Ex. C, §8) and a "flat

fee" liquidated damage of $150.00 is assessed. See Declaration of Makita Wright,

paragraphs 9-10. If payment in full is not received by the 25th day of the second month

after the month contributions were earned, interest is assessed at 1.5% per month against

the unpaid balance from the 25th day of the month following the month when contributions

were earned; such interest will then be assessed against the unpaid monthly balance until

the balance is fully paid. See Declaration of Wright, paragraph 10.

To be entitled to liquidated damages under this provision, the employer must be

delinquent at the time the action was filed, judgment must be entered against the employer,

and the plan must provide for such an award. Northwest Administrators, Inc. v . Albertson's,

Inc., 104 F .3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996). All three requirements are satisfied here. 

As shown in the Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh (paragraph 18) and its Exhibit C,

consistent with § 502(g)(2) of ERISA, the Trust Agreements for the Laborers Trust Funds

provide that a delinquent employer also will be liable for costs and attorneys' fees incurred

by the Funds in enforcing the employer's obligations. 

For example, Article IV, Section 3, of the Trust Agreement for the Laborers Health

And Welfare Trust Fund provides:

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 5 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 6 of 13

“If any Individual Employer defaults in making of Contributions or payments and if

the Board consults legal counsel, there shall be added to the obligation of the

Individual Employer who is in default, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and all other

reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the suit or claim, including any and

all appellate proceedings.”

To be entitled to attorneys' fees under this provision, the employer must be

delinquent at the time the action was filed, judgment must be entered against the employer,

and the plan must provide for such an award. Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Albertson's,

Inc., supra. All three requirements are satisfied here.

C. Joel Carone may be liable under § 409(a) and 515 of ERISA for the same

losses due to his responsibility as an "Employer" and "Fiduciary."

Section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, imposes on the employer the obligations to

contribute to the trust funds. The term "Employer" is defined at § 3 (5) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1002(5), as "any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an

employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan . . . . . Joel Carone, as chief executive

officer, president, and managing responsible officer of Casrik, Inc. (see Declaration of

Leigh, paragraph 6, and Exhibits A and B thereto), is such an employer acting directly as

employer or indirectly in the interest of Casrik, Inc ., as employer with respect to the plaintiff

trust funds. Indeed, Joel Carone is listed as the sole executive officer of Casrik, Inc. He

thus becomes liable to the trust funds for the obligations of Casrik, Inc.

Under § 409(a) of ERISA, a fiduciary with respect to a plan may be held liable for

breach of fiduciary duty to make good the losses incurred by the plan for his breach of duty.

Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA authorizes a fiduciary of an ERISA plan to bring an action to

enforce that liability and to recover on behalf of the plan. Plaintiffs are the named fiduciaries

with respect to these trust funds, and defendant Joel Carone is responsible as a fiduciary

with respect to the payments owed.

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 6 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 7 of 13

The definition of a fiduciary under ERISA is liberally construed according to the

person's conduct, not his title. Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Citibank,

125 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1997). Under § 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) "a

person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (I) he . . . exercises any authority or

control respecting management or disposition of its assets . . . .” 

According to applicable federal regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-102 (1989) the

assets of an ERISA plan include employer contributions from the time that they are

withheld from an employee's wages and become due for payment to the plan: "[t]he assets

of the plan include amounts . . . that a participant has withheld from his wages by an

employer, for contribution to the plan as of the earliest date on which such contributions

can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general assets." The regulation goes

on to define the latest date when such segregation shall be deemed to occur. For plans

such as those represented here by plaintiffs, where contributions are permitted only from

employers, the latest date is the "date on which such amounts [otherwise] would have been

payable to the participant in cash [wages]." See also: United States v. Grizzle, 933 F.2d

943, 946-47 (11th Cir.1991)(holding that employer contributions become plan assets,

though unpaid, as soon as they become due under the collective bargaining agreement).

See also Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning & Refrigeration Industry Health and

Welfare Trust Fund v. J.R.D . Mechanical Services, Inc., 99 F .Supp .2d 1115 C.D.Cal.

1999).

Here, under the terms of the respective trust agreements, the assets of the

respective plans are defined consistent with the federal regulation described above. Article

II, Section 1, of the trust agreement for the Health and Welfare Fund (see Exhibit C to the

Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh), states: the "Fund . . . shall consist of all Contributions

required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement to be made . . . ," i.e., including

contributions due but unpaid and not merely those that have been paid. Under the terms of

the Master Labor Agreement and the applicable trust agreements, such contributions

become due the 25th day after the month in which they were earned. (Id. at §8)

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 7 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 8 of 13

Defendant JOEL CARONE has been the responsible managing officer, chief

executive officer, and president of the defendant corporation throughout the period relevant

to this lawsuit. (See paragraph 6 of the Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh and its Exhibits A and

B.) Defendant Joel Carone thus had discretionary control over the release of employee

benefit contributions withheld from employee wages for payment to the trust funds and so

has been a fiduciary with respect to these plan assets. To the extent that those

contributions have become due and payable and remain unpaid, he has failed his fiduciary

duty to pay such contributions to the trust funds. He thus becomes liable under § 409(a)

for the amount of the delinquent contributions and for losses incurred by the plan,

including lost interest, liquidated damages (for the expenses of auditing and monitoring

delinquent payments), and the costs and attorneys fees incurred in enforcing the

employer's obligations.

D. Plaintiffs are entitled to enforce defendants' liabilities.

Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA authorizes a fiduciary of an ERISA plan to enforce §515

of ERISA to collect unpaid employer contributions owed under a collective bargaining

agreement. The Board of Trustees for the Laborers trust funds is the named fiduciary under

the respective trust agreements. As shown by Exhibit C (see Article IV, section 3) to the

declaration of Bruce K. Leigh, the Board of Trustees is authorized by the respective Trust

Agreements to bring action to enforce the delinquent employer's obligation for

contributions, interest, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys fees. Plaintiffs, as

representatives of the Board of Trustees, are authorized to bring this action on behalf of the

Board of Trustees for the Laborers Trust Funds.

E. The amount of defendants' liabilities is well established .

As explained in the Declaration of Makita Wright (¶12-13, Ex. G-J), as of September

28, 2005, defendants owed plaintiff trust funds the sum of $17,509.66 for unpaid employer

contributions earned during the period of November 2004 through March 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 8 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 9 of 13

As explained in the declaration of Makita Wright (at ¶11, 14-16, Ex. F,L), defendants

owe plaintiffs $1,500.00 for liquidated damages for delinquent payments of the monthly

obligations earned from November 2003 through March 2005.

As further explained in the Declaration of Makita Wright (at ¶14-16, Ex. F,L),

defendants owe the trust funds $4,003.16 for interest accrued on the unpaid balances from

the date each monthly contribution became delinquent until that monthly amount was paid

or, if still delinquent, to August 25, 2005. 

As explained in the Declaration of Mr. Leigh (paragraph 21, and its Exhibit D), further

interest has accrued on the remaining unpaid balance ($17,509.66) to October 25, 2005, in

the amount of $521.04, bringing the total interest accrued as of October.25, 2005, to the

sum of $4,524.20.

As shown in the Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh (at paragraph 22) and its Exhibit E,

defendants owe plaintiffs $434.24 for costs reasonably incurred in bringing this action.

As shown in the Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh (at paragraph 23) and its Exhibit F,

defendants owe plaintiffs $6,210.00 for attorney's fees reasonably incurred to date in

bringing this action. Thus, plaintiffs seek a total money judgment against defendants in the

amount of $30,178.10.

F. Plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction ordering Casrik, Inc., to

submit to an audit by the trust funds' auditor of its business records to

determine its full liability for unpaid contributions and related costs.

Defendants are contractually obligated to permit an audit of their financial records.

Each of the trust agreements governing the Laborers trust funds provide that the Board of

Trustees shall have the power to audit the business records of any employer signatory to

the Master Agreement to determine whether covered work is being properly reported and

employer contributions are being paid in full. Article IV, Section 9, of the trust agreement

for the Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California (see Exhibit C to the

Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh) provides:

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 9 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 10 of 13

“Upon request from the Board, any Individual Employer will permit a Trust Fund

auditor to enter upon the premises of such Individual Employer during business

hours, at a reasonable time or times not less than two working days after such

request, and to examine and copy such books, records, papers or reports of such

Individual Employer as may be necessary to determine whether the Individual

Employer is making full and prompt payment of all sums required to be paid by him

or it to the Fund.”

ERISA also provides Trust Funds the right and authority to audit the records of

signatory employers so long as the audit is done in furtherance of a proper purpose. Plan

trustees have broad powers of discovery in aid of their duty to protect and preserve the

trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas

Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. (1985) 472 U.S. 559, 571 n.12. As Ms. Wright

explains in her declaration (at paragraph 16), defendants have not responded to the Trust

Funds' demand to audit their business records, and the Trust Funds thus do not have any

indication of the full amount of their obligations for delinquent employer contributions.

The only reliable means for determining the full amount of defendants' obligations for

employer contributions is by auditing their business records. There is no adequate legal

remedy available to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs need, and are entitled to, an injunction requiring

defendants to permit plaintiffs to audit their financial records, as requested in the Second

Claim for Relief (Mandatory Injunction).

G. Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys fees

reasonably incurred in enforcing this judgment.

Federal law indisputably provides that a judgment creditor is entitled to interest on a

federal court money judgment. Title 28 U.S .C. § 1961 states how the rate of interest is

normally calculated in the absence of a prior agreement. However, it is well established

that "the parties are free to contract for whatever postjudgment interest rate they choose"

and, if included in the terms of the judgment, that rate shall be enforceable. Horizon

Holding, L.L.C. v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 1250,1272-75 (D.Kan. 2003);

Investment Service Co. v. Allied Equities Corporation, 519 F.2d 508, 511 (9th Cir. 1975).

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 10 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 11 of 13

Here, the Master Agreement for 2002-2006 (Wright Decl. At Ex. C, §28A) provided

that the Trust Funds shall be entitled to interest on unpaid employer contributions at the

rate of 1.5% per month (18% per year). This rate of interest applies before judgment is

entered and until the obligation is fully paid.

Postjudgment costs incurred in enforcing a judgment also are ordinarily recoverable

under federal law. Pre-and post-judgment attorneys’ fees are authorized by contract in the

trust agreements (see Art. IV, Sec. 3 to the Trust Agreement for Laborers Health & Welfare

Trust Fund For Northern California, Exhibit C to the Declaration of Bruce K. Leigh) and by

ERISA, § 502(8)(2), 29 U.S .C . § 1132(8)(2).

Based on the facts set forth in the declarations and for the reasons set forth above,

plaintiffs request of this Court a judgment by default holding defendants Casrik, Inc., and

Joel Carone jointly and severally liable for a money judgment in the amount of $30,178.10,

consisting of delinquent employer contributions, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages,

costs, and attorneys' fees, as shown above, plus further interest (on $17,509.66) at $8.63

per day from October 25, 2005, to the date of the judgment.

Further, plaintiffs request an order compelling defendants Casrik, Inc., and Joel

Carone to submit to an audit of their business records for the period from November 2003

to the present to determine the full amount of employer contributions due to the trust funds.

Such business records should consist of the following:

Individual earnings records; Federal Tax Forms W-3/W-2 and 106911099; Reporting

forms for all Trust Funds, State DE-3/DE-6 Tax Reports; Workers' compensation

insurance; Employee time cards; Payroll Registers/Journals; Quarterly payroll tax

returns (Form 941); Check register and supporting cash vouchers; Forms 1120,

1040 or partnership tax returns; General ledger; Source Records, including time

cards and time card summaries for all employees; Certified payroll reports;

Personnel records indicating job classifications and hire/termination dates; Cash

disbursement journal; Vendor invoices; Copies of subcontract agreements; Cash

receipts journal; Job cost records; Records of related entities; and any other books

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 11 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 12 of 13

and records that may be necessary to complete the auditor's determination or

provide additional explanation of defendants' financial records.

Plaintiffs also request an order reserving the jurisdiction of the court to hear a motion

for a further money judgment against defendant or defendants for additional unpaid

employer contributions and related interest and damages that may be discovered by the

audit referred to above or by other discovery in this action.

Finally, plaintiffs request a judgment declaring that plaintiffs, as judgment creditors,

shall be entitled to postjudgment interest on the judgment until it is satisfied and costs and

attorney's fees that may be reasonably incurred in enforcing collection of the judgment.

Recommendation

This Court recommends that the district court order as follows:

On their First Cause of Action, the Court should order that plaintiffs have and

recover from the defendants Casrik, Inc., and Joel Carone, who shall be jointly and

severally liable therefor, the sum of $23,533.86, consisting of $17,509.66 for unpaid

contributions, $4,524.20 for interest as of October 25, 2005, on the unpaid balances of the

monthly employer obligations, plus further interest on the unpaid contributions at $8.63 per

day from that date until the date of judgment, and $1,500.00 for “flat fee” liquidated

damages.

On their Second Cause of Action, the Court should grant plaintiffs’ demand for an

injunction requiring defendant to submit to an audit of their financial records. Defendants

shall immediately submit to an audit and shall grant plaintiffs access to those financial

records necessary to conduct the audit. The Court should retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’

Second Cause of Action to oversee compliance with this judgment. The financial records

shall include, for the time period October 2003 through the present, at a minimum:

Individual earnings records; Federal Tax Forms W-3/W-2 and 1069/1099; Reporting forms

for all Trust Funds, State DE-3/DE-6 Tax Reports; Workers’ compensation

insurance; Employee time cards; Payroll Registers/Journals; Quarterly payroll tax returns

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 12 of 13
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

C-05-1250 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Page 13 of 13

(Form 941); Check register and supporting cash vouchers; Forms 1120, 1040 or

partnership tax returns; General ledger; Source Records, including time cards and time

card summaries for all employees; Certified payroll reports; Personnel records indicating

job classifications and hire/termination dates; Cash disbursement journal; Vendor

invoices; Copies of subcontract agreements; Cash receipts journal; Job cost records;

Records of related entities; and any other books and records that may be necessary to

complete the auditor’s determination or provide additional explanation of defendants’

financial records.

In connection with this judgment on plaintiffs’ second cause of action, the Court

should retain jurisdiction to enforce its order herein and to hear a motion for a further

money judgment for unpaid employer contributions and related expenses owed by

defendant or defendants as may be discovered by such audit or further discovery.

The Court should also order that Plaintiffs also recover costs in the amount of

$434.24 reasonably incurred in bringing this action, and attorneys fees in the sum of

$6,210.00, reasonably incurred by plaintiffs’ counsel in prosecution of this action to the date

of this judgment.

Finally, the Court should order that plaintiffs recover such interest as shall accrue on

the money judgment at the contractual rate of 18% per annum, and plaintiffs shall recover

such post-judgment costs including attorneys fees as may be reasonably incurred and as

may be shown in enforcing this judgment.

The Court should enter judgment for plaintiffs, exclusive of any post-judgment

interest, costs, or attorneys fees, in the amount of $30,178.10 plus further interest (on

$17,509.66) at $8.63 per day from October 25, 2005, to the date of judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: May 25, 2006

__________________________________ JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\05-1250\R&R re #10.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01250-MJJ Document 19 Filed 05/25/06 Page 13 of 13