Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04332/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04332-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. LOCAL 393 

PENSION FUND AND THE U.A. LOCAL 

393 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST 

FUND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JET MECHANICAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04332-HRL 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Plaintiffs are the trustees of two union benefit plans. Defendant employer Jet Mechanical, 

Inc. (Jet Mechanical) is bound by a Master Labor Agreement (MLA) requiring contributions to be 

made to those plans. (Jesinger Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exs. 1-2).

1

 Pursuant to sections 502 and 515 of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145, and 

section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, plaintiffs sue to recover 

unpaid contributions, as well as damages for belated payments, for the period May 2014 through 

February 2016. They also seek their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

 

1

Plaintiffs advise that after Jet Mechanical first executed the MLA, there have been two 

successive MLAs that included modifications that do not affect employee benefits or benefit 

administration in any way that is relevant to this lawsuit. (Jesinger Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Exs. 3-4).

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Jet Mechanical was served with process (Dkt. 9), but failed to answer or otherwise 

respond. Defendant’s default was entered on January 11, 2016. (Dkt. 13).

Shortly after, with leave of court, plaintiff filed an amended complaint to modify 

allegations as to when Jet Mechanical first became delinquent. The amended complaint alleges 

that defendant was first delinquent further back in time than was alleged in the original complaint.2 

The amended complaint was served on February 3, 2016. (Dkt. 17). When defendant again failed 

to answer or otherwise respond, its default as to the amended complaint was entered on March 11, 

2016. (Dkt. 21).

Plaintiffs now move for default judgment in the amount of $98,291.50, which sum 

includes the amount of principal contributions owed, plus liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and 

costs. Although Jet Mechanical was served with notice of the motion (Dkt. 26), it did not file any 

response, and briefing on this matter is closed. The motion is deemed appropriate for 

determination without oral argument, and the May 24, 2016 motion hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 

7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving papers and the record in this case, this court 

recommends that plaintiffs’ motion be granted.

DISCUSSION

After entry of default, courts may, in their discretion, enter default judgment. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In deciding whether to enter 

default judgment, a court may consider the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to 

the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the 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. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 

1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, all factual allegations in the plaintiff’s 

complaint are taken as true, except those relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 

 

2

Plaintiffs say that defendant was delinquent as far back as April 2014, the last month covered by 

a prior suit involving the same parties heard before this same court. See 5:13-cv-03643 RMW 

(HRL) Trustees of the U.A. Local 393 Pension Fund, et al. v. Jet Mechanical, Inc.

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 6
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

826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). When the damages claimed are not readily ascertainable 

from the pleadings and the record, the court may conduct a hearing to conduct an accounting, 

determine the amount of damages, establish the truth of any allegation by evidence, or investigate

any other matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

A. Liability-Related Allegations

All of the Eitel factors favor entry of default judgment here. Having reviewed the 

amended complaint, the court finds that plaintiffs’ claims have merit and are sufficiently pled. 

According to the factual allegations, which are deemed true, defendant violated ERISA and 

breached the MLA by failing to make the contributions owed for each such month. See 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.”).

The sum of money at stake in the action is not insignificant. Nevertheless, because all 

liability-related allegations are deemed true, there is no possibility of a dispute as to material facts. 

Moreover, Jet Mechanical has failed to appear or present a defense in this matter; and, there is no 

indication that its default was due to excusable neglect. While the court prefers to decide matters 

on the merits, defendant’s failure to participate in this litigation makes that impossible. A default 

judgment against defendant is plaintiffs’ only recourse.

B. Unpaid Principal Contributions

The record presented indicates that Jet Mechanical has made most of the subject 

contributions (albeit, the payments were not timely made). However, plaintiff reports that the 

principal contribution for the month of February 2016 is still unpaid. They have submitted the 

declaration of the plans’ chief administrator, which confirms that Jet Mechanical owes a total of 

$32,399.10 in principal contributions. (Jesinger Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 12). This declaration 

satisfactorily establishes the amount of unpaid principal owed by Jet Mechanical.

C. Liquidated Damages

As discussed, it appears that Jet Mechanical has made most of the principal contributions 

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 6
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

in question, although none of the payments were timely made. A number of payments were made 

prior to the filing of this lawsuit. (Jesinger Decl. ¶10). Several were made after plaintiffs filed 

their complaint. (Id. ¶ 11, Exs. 5-12).

ERISA allows for the collection of liquidated damages. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii); see 

also Idaho Plumbers Trust Funds v. United Mechanical Contractors, 875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 

1989) (ERISA’s liquidated damages provision applies “when (1) the fiduciary obtains a judgment 

in favor of the plan, (2) unpaid contributions exist at the time of suit, and (3) the plan provides for 

liquidated damages.”). In this case, the MLA requires liquidated damages in the amount of $250 

per delinquent month---or 20% of any principal amount not paid by the time the trust funds file 

suit to collect payment. (Jesinger Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 2, ¶ 174). These terms are fully enforceable under 

ERISA. Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 257-58 (9th Cir. 

1996). The record amply supports plaintiffs’ claim for $3,500.00 in damages for pre-litigation 

contributions and $56,371.99 for contributions made after this suit was filed. (Jesinger Decl., ¶¶

10-11, Exs. 5-12).

D. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Under ERISA, plaintiffs are also entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D); Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 514 (9th

Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted a declaration identifying his $250 hourly billing rate, 

describing his background and over 30 years of experience in labor and employment law, and 

identifying the work he performed in this case. (Renner Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, 6, Ex. 1). This court is 

familiar with the range of rates customarily charged by attorneys practicing before it, and the 

stated hourly rate appears to be commensurate with, if not below, those charged for cases of this 

magnitude and complexity and for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, 

experience, and reputation. Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (agreeing that 

“judges are justified in relying on their own knowledge of customary rates and their experience 

concerning reasonable and proper fees.”); see also Minichino v. First California Realty, No. C11-

5185 EMC, 2012 WL 6554401 at *7 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 14, 2012) (relying on the court’s own 

experience in evaluating a fee request). In similar cases, courts in this district have approved rates 

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 4 of 6
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

higher than those charged by plaintiffs’ counsel. See, e.g., Bd. of Trustees of the Laborers Health 

& Welfare Trust v. Tear-N-It Up Demolition, Inc., No. 15-cv-01215 JSW (JCS), 2015 WL 

6956601 at *8 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2015) (noting approval of $250 hourly rate for an associate and 

a $375 hourly rate for a senior partner). This court is also satisfied that the fees reasonably were 

incurred. (Renner Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1). The record also supports plaintiffs’ claimed costs for the 

filing fee and for service of process. (Dkt. 1; Renner Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2). Accordingly, this court 

finds that plaintiffs should be awarded $5,512.50 in attorneys’ fees and $507.91 in costs.

Because all parties have yet to consent to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, IT IS ORDERED 

THAT this case be reassigned to a District Judge. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs’ 

motion for default judgment be granted and that plaintiffs be awarded $98,291.50 in unpaid 

principal contributions, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Any party may serve and 

file objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated: May 17, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 6
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

5:15-cv-04332-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Mark Stephen Renner mrenner@wmprlaw.com, mhansen@wmprlaw.com

Case 5:15-cv-04332-EJD Document 29 Filed 05/17/16 Page 6 of 6