Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01316/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01316-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM CHILKO, TRUSTEE; DANNY )

KANE, TRUSTEE, JAMES ELROD, )

TRUSTEE; DON RUSH, TRUSTEE; )

CARL JARRETT, TRUSTEE, AND ROD )

BAILEY, TRUSTEE, TRUSTEES OF THE )

KERN COUNTY ELECTRICAL )

WORKERS’ PENSION PLAN )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

EARNIE LORREN, an individual, and )

DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv1316 OWW GSA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

ORDER DEEMING MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT WITHDRAWN

ORDER VACATING DEFAULT ENTERED

ON NOVEMBER 29, 2007

(Documents 8, 20 and 28)

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ Jim Chilko, Trustee; Danny Kane, Trustee; James

Elrod, Trustee; Don Rush, Trustee; Carl Jarrett, Trustee, and Rod Bailey, Trustee; Trustees of

The Kern County Electrical Workers’ Pension Plan (“Plaintiffs”) Second Motion for Default

Judgment (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment”) filed on June 11, 2008. Also pending

before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint filed on September 10, 2008. The

court has reviewed the papers and has determined that these matters are suitable for decision

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Accordingly, the hearing set for

September 26, 2008, at 9:30 was VACATED. Upon consideration of all the pleadings,

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to

Case 1:07-cv-01316-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 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

2

VACATE default entered on November 29, 2007. Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment is deemed WITHDRAWN.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 7, 2007, based on Section 302(c) of the Labor

Management Relations Act (“Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 186(c) and the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., as amended. The specific facts

alleged in the complaint will not be recited as they have been outlined in a previous orders. In

summary, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Earnie Lorren, committed fraud and was unjustly

enriched by receiving pension payments after making misrepresentations regarding his eligibility

to receive benefits as an early retiree. Plaintiffs asserted two causes of action alleging fraud and

unjust enrichment in the Complaint. Complaint at ¶ 13 - 22. The relief requested in the

Complaint is compensatory damages and prejudgment interest for each cause of action,

attorney’s fees, and costs. Complaint at pg. 5.

On November 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Defendant Lorren

was personally served on November 4, 2007. Doc. 6. The Clerk of the Court entered default on

November 29, 2007. Doc. 8.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment on March 17, 2008. In the motion,

Plaintiffs sought a judgment in the amount of $62,742.78 which included $ 44,792.00 for

reimbursement of retirement benefits, $11,318.78 for 10% pre-judgment interest, $6,267.00 in

attorney fees plus costs of $365.00. Plaintiffs also requested that the judgment bear interest at a

rate of 10% from the date of entry until paid. 

The court denied the Motion for Default Judgment because inter alia, Plaintiffs had not

outlined how the facts alleged in the complaint satisfied the claims for unjust enrichment and

fraud and because Plaintiffs had not demonstrated they were entitled to the relief they were

seeking. Accordingly, Findings and Recommendations were issued on May 9, 2008,

recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment be denied without prejudice. Doc.

19. These Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on

June 16, 2008. Doc. 22.

Case 1:07-cv-01316-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Subsequently, on June 11, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment. 

In this motion, Plaintiffs requested a monetary judgment in the amount of $44,792.00 plus an

unspecified amount of interest, $6736.50 in attorney’s fees, and $350.00 for costs all totaling

$51,878.50. On August 3, 2008, the court issued an order requiring that the Plaintiffs provide the

court with additional points and authorities indicating why the complaint was sufficient as

alleged, how the causes of action and all the relief Plaintiffs were seeking was authorized under

federal law, and why this court should not recommend that the Motion for Default Judgment be

denied. In the order, the court noted that Plaintiffs’ causes of action alleging common law claims

appeared to be preempted by ERISA. In the alternative, Plaintiffs could withdraw their Motion

for Default Judgment and file a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. 

On September 10, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, however,

Plaintiffs have not withdrawn their Motion for Default Judgment. In the Amended Complaint,

Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for Restitution and Unjust Enrichment and a cause of action for

Equitable Restitution on Monies Had and Received. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of losses

sustained plus the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits in the amount totaling at least $44,792.00,

pre- and post- judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Plaintiffs also request an order

directing Defendant to pay the amounts due to the pension fund, declare that the Defendant hold

his interest in specific property in trust for the pension fund and compel Defendant to convey his

interest in such property to the pension fund. 

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when

justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the

rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). This policy is “to be applied with extreme

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9 2003) th (citations

omitted). Furthermore, under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter

Case 1:07-cv-01316-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 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

4

of course,” and without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1); 

Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In this case, there is no prejudice to the Defendant as the amendment will provide him

with an additional opportunity to answer and participate in the case. Furthermore, since

Defendant did not file a responsive pleading, Plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint under

Rule 15(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(1). Plaintiffs are advised that in the event that Defendant does

not appear and a Motion for Default Judgment is filed, Plaintiffs will need to provide the court

with legal authority that they are entitled to the relief requested in the Amended Complaint under

federal law. Furthermore, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once a plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, Default

entered on November 29, 2007 will be VACATED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgement

is deemed Withdrawn.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that :

1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint filed on September 10,

2008 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant with the Amended Complaint within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order and provide the court with proof of service. If Plaintiffs are

unable to execute service, Plaintiffs shall provide the court with an explanation of the

circumstances of attempted service at the end of the thirty (30) day period; 

2) Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgement filed on June 11, 2008 is deemed

WITHDRAWN; and

3) The Clerk of the Court shall VACATE default entered on November 29, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 29, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01316-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 4