Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01375/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01375-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OPERATING ENGINEERS' HEALTH 

AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRI-VALLEY SWEEPING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01375-PJH (KAW)

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT; ORDER REQUIRING 

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

Dkt. No. 18

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant 

Tri-Valley Sweeping. (Dkt. No. 18.) On September 12, 2014, the motion was referred to the 

undersigned for report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 23.) On November 12, 2014, the Court 

ordered Plaintiffs to file a supplemental briefing in support of their request for reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs, which complied with the requirements set forth in Civil Local Rule 54-

5(b)(2)-(3), on or before November 17, 2014. (Dkt. No. 31.)

On November 17, 2014, instead of filing the supplemental brief as ordered, Plaintiffs 

notified the Court that they had been contacted by Defendants, and requested that the November 

20, 2014 hearing be continued to allow sufficient time for the parties to resolve the matter 

informally. (Dkt. No. 33.) The Court granted the request and continued the hearing to January 15, 

2015. (Dkt. No. 34.)

Plaintiffs did not file a supplemental brief in support of their request for attorneys’ fees and 

costs until January 13, 2015 at 4:35 p.m. (Dkt. No. 38.) This is not sufficient time for the Court to 

review the brief in advance of the January 15, 2015 hearing. Plaintiffs also filed an amended 

proposed judgment on January 13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 36.) Both the supplemental brief and amended 

proposed judgment included attorneys’ fees earned after the motion for default judgment was filed

Case 4:14-cv-01375-PJH Document 43 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and an updated amount of the alleged deficiency. As to the attorneys’ fees and costs, it is unclear, 

however, (1) when the fees were incurred, and (2) which fees were incurred in relation to the

attempted collection of the delinquency, which is recoverable, and which fees, if any, were 

incurred in relation to the deficiencies in the original motion for default judgment, which would be 

unreasonable. In addition, the brief shall also address the breakdown of the amended amounts of 

unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and interest—akin to what was provided in the motion 

for default judgment—as the summary in the amended proposed judgment is inadequate to support 

the relief requested. Plaintiffs shall submit their second supplemental brief, supported by billing 

records, on or before January 21, 2015.

The Court notes that the law firm of Saltzman & Johnson is routinely ordered to submit 

supplemental briefing in support of its requests for attorneys’ fees in connection with motions for 

default judgment. In fact, the Court will continue the hearing on this motion to February 5, 2015, 

because counsel is already scheduled to appear on another case, which also required additional 

time to accommodate supplemental briefing in support of the request for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

See Order Requiring Supplemental Briefing Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment; 

Order Setting Hearing Date, Bricklayers Local 3 Pension Trust, et al. v. South Valley Masonry, 

Inc., 14-cv-03515-JSW (KAW) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014), ECF 27. While the undersigned has 

been generous in providing the Saltzman & Johnson Law Corporation opportunities to file 

supplemental briefs to remedy the deficiencies in its moving papers, this will not be the case going 

forward. Instead, in the interest of conserving our court’s limited resources, future requests for 

attorneys’ fees that are not sufficiently supported will be denied. Accordingly, counsel should 

ensure that any request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs comply with the requirements set 

forth in Civil Local Rule 54-5.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:14-cv-01375-PJH Document 43 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is continued to February 5, 2015 at 

11:00 a.m. at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. Plaintiffs’ second supplemental brief shall be 

filed on or before January 21, 2015.

Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2015 ______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-01375-PJH Document 43 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 3