Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00772/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00772-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1131 E.R.I.S.A. Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ACCU-BALANCE ASSOCIATES INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-0772 CW (EDL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On February 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint under Section 502 of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and Section 301 of the

Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), alleging that Defendant violated a collective

bargaining agreement and certain Trust Agreements. The complaint sought an order requiring

Defendant to permit Plaintiffs to examine all of Defendant’s past payroll books and records for the

purpose of ascertaining the amounts owed by Defendant for the period April 1, 2002 through March

31, 2005, an order requiring Defendant to pay the amounts determined by the audit to be due,

including liquidated damages and interest, an order enjoining Defendant from violating the terms of

the collective bargaining agreement and the Trust Agreement, costs and attorney’s fees and such

other relief as the court deems proper. 

On October 19, 2006, Defendant was served with the complaint. Defendant failed to answer

the complaint or otherwise defend the action. On November 29, 2006, upon Plaintiffs’ request, the

Clerk of this court entered Defendant’s default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). By its

default, Defendant is deemed to have admitted the well-pleaded averments of the complaint except

those as to the amount of damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). In this Motion for Default Judgment,

Plaintiffs seek costs and fees, as well as the right to audit Defendant’s books and records. 

Case 4:06-cv-00772-CW Document 23 Filed 01/23/07 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

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment was referred to this Court pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 72-1. Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment against Defendant came on for hearing on

January 23, 2006. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing through counsel Michael Carroll. Defendant did

not appear for the hearing. 

DISCUSSION

A court may not enter a default judgment against an unrepresented minor, an incompetent

person, or a person in military service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); 50 App. U.S.C. § 520. As a

corporation, Defendant is not a unrepresented minor, an incompetent person or person in military

service, or otherwise exempted from default judgment. See Compl. ¶ 3 (Defendant is a corporation

residing and doing business in San Jose, California); Declaration of Mark Van Den Heuvel ¶ 2

(Defendant is a California corporation). 

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving their entitlement to relief through testimony or written

affidavit. To that end, Plaintiffs submitted the declarations of: Tim Hallenbeck, custodian of records

for Lindquist LLP, Certified Public Accountants; Bonnie Maraia, a manager and custodian of

records for Benesys, administrators of the Sheet Metal Workers Helth Care Plan of Northern

California, Sheet Metal Workers Pension Trust of Northern California, Sheet Metal Workers Local

104 Vacation, Holiday Savings Plan; Mark Van Den Heuvel, Business Representative and custodian

of records for Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104; and Michael Carroll, Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

The evidence establishes that, as of the signature date of May 19, 1999, Defendant was bound by the

terms and conditions of the Standard Form of Union Agreement and Addenda thereto effective

through June 30, 2006 (“Collective Bargaining Agreement”). See Declaration of Mark Van Den

Heuvel at ¶ 2, Ex. 1, Compl. ¶ 5. Defendant is also subject to the provisions of the Trust Agreement

of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Trust of Northern California (“Trust Agreement”), which is

incorporated by reference into the Collective Bargaining Agreement. See Maraia Decl. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2;

see also Compl. ¶ 5. The Collective Bargaining Agreement remained in full force and effect. See

Van Den Heuvel Decl. ¶ 2. Defendant has acknowledged that it is bound by the Collective

Bargaining Agreement by adhering to its terms and conditions, including payment of trust fund

contributions to Plaintiffs. See Van Den Heuvel Decl. ¶ 2. 

Case 4:06-cv-00772-CW Document 23 Filed 01/23/07 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

On October 25, 2005, October 27, 2005, November 3, 2005, November 14, 2005, and

November 18, 2005, Plaintiffs sought access to Defendant’s books and records in accordance with

the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Trust Agreement. See Hallenback Decl. ¶ 4; Hallenback

Decl. Ex. 1 (letter listing telephone contacts); Maraia Decl. ¶ 4 and Ex. 2 at Art. III(D). Defendant

has breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement by refusing access by Plaintiffs’ accountant to its

books and records for an audit. See Hallenback Decl. at ¶ 4; Maraia Decl. ¶ 2. The Complaint seeks

auditor access to all past payroll books and records. See Compl. Prayer Item 1. Plaintiffs now seek

an audit of Defendant’s books and records to determine whether Defendant has made full and

prompt payment of all fringe benefits contributions during the period April 2, 2002 to March 31,

2005. Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for an audit, Plaintiffs are entitled to

examine Defendant’s books and records. 

Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of action shall be awarded to a Trust Fund or Employee

Benefit Plan that receives a judgment in its favor. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D); Maraia Decl. Ex.

2 at Art. III(E). Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of attorney Michael Carroll to prove

attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Carroll calculates that, at a rate of $185.00 per hour, attorneys’ fees of

$555.00 have accumulated. See Carroll Decl. at ¶ 5. The amount of time expended and the billing

rate are reasonable given the work performed. Mr. Carroll calculates Plaintiffs’ costs for

prosecuting this action to be $525.00, consisting of the filing fee and service of process. See Carroll

Decl. at ¶ 2 and Ex. 5. These costs are reasonable and should be reimbursed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause shown, It Is Hereby Recommended that

the following default judgment be entered:

This Court having previously entered default against Defendant, and Plaintiffs having

applied to this Court for the entry of default judgment,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Attorneys’ fees and costs are awarded in the amount of $555.00 in attorney’s 

fees, and $525.00 in costs.

2. Defendant is ordered to immediately submit to an audit. Defendant will make available to

Case 4:06-cv-00772-CW Document 23 Filed 01/23/07 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

plaintiffs the following records, for the time period April 2, 2002 to March 31, 2005: time cards,

payroll journals, payroll check registers, cancelled payroll checks, copies of the Employer’s federal,

state and local payroll tax reports, and all other documents reflecting the hours and wages of

employees. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within ten

(10) working days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January _23___, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00772-CW Document 23 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 4