Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02979/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02979-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, IN THEIR 

CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE 

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACIFIC COAST MARKINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02979-PJH (JCS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 25

I. INTRODUCTION

In this ERISA enforcement action, Plaintiffs move for entry of default judgment and an 

order awarding unpaid employee benefit contributions, liquidated damages and interest, and 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ Motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a 

report and recommendation. The Motion came on for hearing on February 13, 2015. Plaintiffs 

filed a supplemental declaration on March 6, 2015 and a second supplemental declaration on 

March 19, 2015. For the reasons stated below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion be 

GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) names the following trust funds (“Trust Funds”) 

as Plaintiffs: (1) Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California; (2) Laborers 

Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California; (3) Laborers Pension Trust Fund for 

Northern California; (4) Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California. 

FAC at 2. The FAC alleges that the Trust Funds are employee benefit plans within the meaning of 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 10
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

sections 3, 4, and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 

1002, 1003, and 1132. Id. 

The FAC names (1) Mark Thomas Bates, individually; (2) Mark Thomas Bates, doing 

business as Pacific Coast Markings, Inc., a suspended California corporation; and (3) Pacific 

Coast Markings, Inc., a suspended California corporation as Defendants. Id. The declaration of 

Michelle Lauziere1states that Bates is an officer of Pacific Coast Markings, Inc. (signing as 

“President”). Declaration of Michelle Lauziere in Support of Motion for Default Judgment 

(“Lauziere Decl.”) ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that “at all times material herein,” Defendants “have been 

an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) and section 515 of ERISA (29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5), 

1145).” FAC at 2–3. The FAC alleges that by signing a Memorandum Agreement with the

Northern California District Council of Laborers, “Defendants were signatories and bound to” the 

Northern California Laborers Master Agreement (“Master Agreement”) and Trust Agreements that 

govern each of the Trust Funds. Id. at 3.

The Master Agreement establishes the rates at which employers are required to contribute 

to the Trust Funds. Lauziere Decl. ¶¶ 9–10, Ex. F (Master Agreement) at 28. Employers must 

make payments no later than the 25th day of the month; if payments are not made by that date, 

they become delinquent. Lauziere Decl., Ex. A (Trust Agreements) at 6 (Art. II, § 10). The Master 

Agreement provides for liquidated damages and interest on delinquent contributions. In particular: 

All delinquent contributions shall bear simple interest at the rate of 

one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month until receipt of payment. 

Subject to accounting verification, liquidated damages shall be 

assessed on delinquent contributions at a flat rate of one hundred 

and fifty dollars ($150.00) per month to reflect the internal 

administrative costs incurred by the trust administrators in 

monitoring and tracking such late contributions. 

Lauziere Decl., Ex. F, § 28A.

2

In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that for a number of months between 2011 and 2013, 

 

1 Accounts Receivable Manager for Laborers Funds Administrative Office of Northern California, 

Inc.

2 At oral argument, Plaintiffs stipulated that the $150 in liquidated damages referenced in Section 

28A does not accrue every month after the contribution becomes delinquent and remains unpaid, 

as the language of that provision might suggest, but rather, is a one-time fee that is imposed for 

each month in which contributions are not paid on time.

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 10
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

Defendants either failed to pay their required contributions or failed to pay them on time. FAC at 

4. Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) actual damages for breach of 

contract; and (3) damages and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty, which Plaintiffs allege 

constitutes a violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145. Id. at 4-6. 

B. Service and Entry of Default

On September 21, 2014, Plaintiffs served Defendants with the summons and First 

Amended Complaint by personally delivering the papers to Bates. See Dkt. Nos. 19 and 19-1

(Proofs of Service Summons). Plaintiffs state that Bates is an officer of Pacific Coast Markings, 

Inc. Lauziere Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. G (Memorandum of Agreement Signed by Mark Bates as Responsible 

Official for Pacific Coast Markings, Inc.). Defendants did not answer. On November 10, 2014, 

Plaintiffs filed a Request for Entry of Default. Dkt. 23. On November 13, 2014, the Clerk entered 

default against Defendants. Dkt. 24. On December 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion 

seeking entry of default judgment. 

C. Motion

In the Motion, Plaintiffs request default judgment against Defendants and awards of: (1) 

$9,767.26 in unpaid contributions for June through September 2013; (2) $4,599.56 in liquidated 

damages and interest for May and June of 2011, August through October of 2011, August 2012, 

June through September of 2013, November and December of 2013, and August through October

of 2014; (3) $10,857.50 in attorney’s fees and $876.51 in costs. Mot. at 4–5; Lauziere Decl. ¶¶ 14–

15.

D. Supplemental Declarations

After the hearing, Plaintiffs filed two supplemental declarations. See Supplemental 

Declaration of Michelle Lauziere in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (“Lauziere 

Supp. Decl.”); Second Supplemental Declaration of Michelle Lauziere in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (“Lauziere Second Supp. Decl.”). The supplemental declarations

include the interest calculations (original amount due and dates of late payments) on late 

contributions for the following months: May and June of 2011, August through October of 2011, 

August 2012, June through September of 2013, November and December of 2013, and August 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 10
4

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

through October of 2014. See Lauziere Supp. Decl., Exs. B–D and F–K; Lauziere Second Supp. 

Decl. ¶ 6–7, Ex. E. In addition, the Supplement Declaration requests a $150.00 liquidated damage

fee to be assessed for June 2013, since in the Motion, Plaintiffs “inadvertently left out the $150.00 

liquidated damage flat fee that should have been assessed for June 2013.” Lauziere Supp. Decl. ¶ 

17. 

In response to the Court’s concerns during the hearing, the Supplemental Declaration 

explains that even though Plaintiffs request interest on the “unpaid” contributions from June 2013 

as well as interest on the “paid but late” contributions from June 2013, they did not double-count 

the interest from June 2013: on April 15, 2014, Defendants made a partial payment of the 

contributions from June 2013, and the interest shown in the November 25, 2014 Audit Report does 

not include the interest on the April 2014 late payment. See Lauziere Supp. Decl. ¶ 17. Plaintiffs 

also clarify that they request a higher interest amount in the Motion than the FAC because they 

updated the interest calculations at the time of filing the Motion. Lauziere Supp. Decl. ¶ 7. In 

addition, Plaintiffs mention that they changed the status of the November and December 2013 

contributions from “unpaid” in the FAC to “paid but paid late” in the Motion because Defendants 

paid those contributions during the pendency of the litigation. Lauziere Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. 

III.DISCUSSION

A. Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiffs apply for a default judgment on the basis that Defendants failed to plead or 

otherwise defend or appear after valid service. The court may enter a default judgment once the 

Clerk, under Rule 55(a), has entered a party’s default based on a failure to plead or otherwise 

defend the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). If the court is satisfied that jurisdiction is proper and 

that service of process upon the defendant was adequate, courts are instructed to consider several 

facts in determining whether to grant default judgment: 

(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 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.

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 10
5

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

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1987). Upon default, the court takes all factual 

allegations in the complaint, except those relating to damages, as true. See TeleVideo Systems, Inc. 

v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, the record supports that Defendants are subject to default judgment. Defendants have 

been adequately served and have not responded, and the Clerk has entered default against 

Defendants. The undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are well-pleaded. Plaintiffs have offered 

evidence that Defendants signed a Memorandum Agreement and are thus bound to the Master and 

Trust Agreements. Lauziere Decl. ¶ 7. These Agreements impose liability on delinquent 

employers for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney’s fees. Lauziere 

Decl. ¶¶ 10–13. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to make complete, timely contribution 

payments. FAC at 4; Lauziere Decl. ¶¶ 14–16. Consequently, Plaintiffs state a claim under 

ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145 (“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”). Furthermore, the record contains

no evidence of excusable neglect that would justify denying Plaintiffs’ request for default 

judgment. The undersigned thus concludes that liability is established as to Plaintiffs’ ERISA 

claims and that default judgment should be entered against Defendants. 

B. Remedy

1. Section 1132(g)

Once liability is established, a plaintiff is required to establish that the requested relief is 

appropriate. See Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1977). Under ERISA, an 

employee benefit plan that obtains judgment in its favor in an action for unpaid contributions 

under 29 U.S.C. § 1145 is entitled to the following forms of relief: 

(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

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 10
6

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

(ii) liquidated damages provided for under the 

plan in an amount not in excess of 20 percent 

(or such higher percentage as may be 

permitted under Federal or State law) of the 

amount determined by the court under 

subparagraph (A),

(D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, 

to be paid by the defendant, and

(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court 

deems appropriate.

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Interest on unpaid contributions is determined by the rate provided under 

the plan, or if none is specified, the rate prescribed under 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Id.

2. Contributions

Plaintiffs must submit proof of their damages. See TeleVideo, 826 F.2d at 917–18. Here, 

Plaintiffs seek $9,767.26 in unpaid contributions for the period June through September of 2013. 

Mot. at 4. The Plaintiffs’ Audit Report supports the requested amount. Lauziere Decl., Exs. H 

(Audit Report for Period January 2013 to September 2013) at 8 and F (Master Agreement), §§ 

28A, E. Thus, it is recommended that the amount be awarded in full.

3. Liquidated Damages and Interest

In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages and interest in the amount of $4,749.56

for delinquent contributions, some of which were paid before the filing of the action and some of 

which remained unpaid at the time of filing. Mot. at 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek $1,800 in 

liquidated damages and $2,949.56 in interest. See Lauziere Decl. ¶ 15; Exs. H–J; Lauziere Supp. 

Decl. ¶¶ 9, 17, 21. 

a. Liquidated Damages

The Master Agreement provides for liquidated damages at a flat rate of $150 to be assessed 

on delinquent contributions. Lauziere Decl., Ex. F, Section 28A. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), 

liquidated damages of up to 20 percent are permitted on contributions that remain unpaid at the 

time the action is filed. See Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters Health & Welfare Fund v. United Mech. 

Contractors, Inc., 875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 1989). It is unclear whether the statute allows 

liquidated damages on contributions paid before the action is filed. See Trustees of Bricklayers 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 10
7

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

Local No. 3 Pension Trust v. Huddleston, No. 10-1708 JSC, 2013 WL 2181532, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

May 20, 2013) (discussing split of authority). However, even if the statute does not, federal 

common law allows recovery on contributions paid before filing pursuant to the contract rate (e.g. 

flat rate of $150). See Bd. of Trustees v. KMA Concrete Construction Co., No. C-10-05774 JCS, 

2011 WL 7446345, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2011) (finding under similar facts a provision 

providing liquidated damages at a flat rate of $150 enforceable under federal common law where 

ERISA does not apply); See Idaho Plumbers, 875 F.2d at 217 (ERISA does not preempt the 

federal common law of liquidated damages when ERISA does not apply). Thus, Plaintiffs may 

recover liquidated damages even for contributions that were paid before the time of filing. 

Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages totaling $1,650 for delinquent contributions in the 

following eleven months: May and June of 2011, August through October of 2011, August 2012, 

November and December of 2013, and August through October of 2014. Lauziere Decl., Exs. I 

and J (Statements of Interest and Liquidated Damages Due). The requested amount is the sum of 

eleven months of liquidated damages at the rate specified in the Master Agreement. Thus, the 

amount should be awarded in full. 

b. Interest

The Master Agreement provides that “all delinquent contributions shall bear simple 

interest at the rate of one and a half percent (1.5%) per month until receipt of payment.” Lauziere 

Decl., Ex. F, § 28A. As with liquidated damages, 29 U.S. C. § 1132(g) entitles Plaintiffs to interest 

on contributions unpaid at the time of filing. See Idaho Plumbers, 875 F.2d at 215. Likewise, 

interest on delinquent contributions paid before filing may be available as a matter of contract. See 

Board of Trustees of Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern Cal. v. Shade Const. 

and Engineering, No. C 06-6830 PJH, 2007 WL 3071003, at * 7 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 19, 2007) 

(finding provision setting interest rate on late contributions at 1.5% per month enforceable). For 

the reasons stated in Shade Construction, the undersigned concludes that the Master Agreement’s 

interest provision is also enforceable on delinquent contributions paid before the time of filing. 

Here, Plaintiffs seek $2,949.56 in interest, which comprises the following: (a) $2,253.18 

for unpaid contributions from June through September of 2013; (b) $682.37 for paid but late 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 7 of 10
8

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

contributions from May and June of 2011, August through October of 2011, August 2012, June 

2013, November through December of 2013, August 2014; (c) $14.01 for unpaid contributions 

from September and October of 2014. Lauziere Decl., Exs. H–J (Audit Report and Statements of 

Interest and Liquidated Damages Due). The submitted materials support awarding the full amount 

of $2,949.56. See Lauziere Decl., Ex. H (Audit Report); Lauziere Supp. Decl., Exs. B–D, F–K; 

Lauziere Second Supp. Decl. ¶ 6–7, Ex. E. 

4. Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs request $10,857.50 in attorneys’ fees: (a) $9,477.50 for 29.503hours of 

completed work and (b) $1,380.00 for the anticipated “appearance at the hearing on the motion for 

default judgment” and “follow-up work regarding the judgment entered by the Court.” Carder 

Decl. ¶ 10. 

Under ERISA and the Trust Agreements, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ 

fees. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D); Lauziere Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. A (Trust Agreements) at 8 (Art IV, § 3). 

To determine whether Plaintiffs’ claimed hours are reasonable, the Court must review attorneys’ 

time records to determine whether the hours are adequately documented. See Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). Decisions by other courts regarding the reasonableness of 

the rate sought may provide evidence to support a finding of reasonableness. See Widrig v. Apfel, 

140 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that rate set by district court, based in part on the 

rate awarded to same attorney in another case, was reasonable). 

The completed work consists of the following: (a) $4,916.25 for 14.25 hours of work by 

Concepción Lozano-Batista, Shareholder (rate of $345 per hour); (b) $4,053.75 for 11.75 hours of 

work by Ezekiel D. Carder, Shareholder (rate of $345 per hour); (c) $181.25 for 1.25 hours of 

work by Judy Castillo, Senior Paralegal (rate of $145 per hour); and (d) $326.25 for 2.25 hours of 

work by Aaron Nathan, Senior Paralegal (rate of $145 per hour). See Carder Decl. ¶¶ 5-9, Ex. A. 

The Court finds the amounts and rates reasonable given that Plaintiffs’ time records are detailed 

 

3 Carder’s Declaration states that the amount is for 28.25 hours of work, but the attached Exhibit A 

and arithmetic confirm that the amount is for 29.50 hours of work. Carder Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A 

(Professional Time Records). 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 8 of 10
9

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 non-duplicative and that courts in this district have awarded similar hourly rates in similar 

cases. See Carder Decl., Ex. A; Bd. of Trs. Of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. 

Perez, No. C-10-2002 JSW JCS, 2011 WL 6151506, at *14 (N.D.Cal. Nov.7, 2011) (finding 

hourly rates of $345 reasonable in ERISA case); Bd. of Trustees v. C & L Coatings, No. C 12-

1368 PJH MEJ, 2012 WL 7748318, at *10 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 18, 2012), report and recommendation 

adopted, No. C 12–1368 PJH, 2013 WL 1087849, at *1 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2013) (awarding 

$145 per hour to paralegal in ERISA case). Therefore, it is recommended that Defendants be 

ordered to pay Plaintiffs $9,477.50 in attorneys’ fees. 

As for the anticipated fee of $1,380 for “an appearance at the hearing on the motion for 

default judgment” and “follow-up work regard the judgment entered by the Court,” Plaintiffs do 

not show how the dollar amount was generated. Further, the term “follow-up work” is vague, and 

Plaintiffs do not justify its necessity. See Bd. of Trustees v. Protech Servs., Inc., No. C 12-01047 

MEJ, 2014 WL 122702, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (denying “expected fees” for “follow-up 

work” because “Plaintiffs have failed to articulate what ‘follow-up work’ is necessary once the 

Court issues its order on Plaintiffs’ Motion”). Therefore, the undersigned does not recommend

awarding the anticipated fee.

5. Costs

Plaintiffs request $876.51 in costs, broken down as follows: (a) $400.00 for the filing fee; 

(b) $455.21 for service on Defendants; (c) $13.80 for “reproduction costs”; and (d) $7.50 for 

“electronic research (Pacer).” See Carder Decl., Ex. B. (December 17, 2014, Breakdown of Costs). 

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D) and the Trust Agreements provide for the recovery of 

reasonable costs of the action. See Lauziere Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. A (Trust Agreements), Art. IV, § 3. An 

award of costs may include the filing fee, process service fees (“to the extent reasonably required 

and actually incurred”), and certain reproduction costs. Civil Local Rule 54-3. 

The record supports that the requested filing fee and process service fees here were 

“reasonably required and actually incurred” and are thus allowable. Civil Local Rule 54-3. Costs 

relating to electronic research and reproduction are reasonable. See Lauziere Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. A 

(Trust Agreements), Art. IV, § 3; see also Ontiveros v. Zamora, No. 2:08-567 WBS DAD, 303 

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

F.R.D. 356, 375 (E.D. Cal. 2014). It is thus recommended that Plaintiffs be awarded the full 

amount of the requested costs, for a total of $ 876.51.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the following relief is recommended: (1) unpaid 

contributions in the amount of $9,767.26; (2) liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800.00; (3) 

interest in the amount of $2,949.56; (4) attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,477.50; (5) costs in the 

amount of $876.51. The undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion be GRANTED and 

judgment entered in the amount of $24,870.83.

Any party may file objections to the recommendations above no later than fourteen days 

after the party is served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: March 24, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02979-PJH Document 38 Filed 03/24/15 Page 10 of 10