Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02971/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02971-1/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

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

LABORERS HEALTH & WELFARE 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARD RAY GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02971-JD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Plaintiffs sued defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) 

and the Labor Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 1132; 29 U.S.C. § 185. The complaint 

and summons were served on July 16, 2014. Dkt. No. 10-11. The defendants have not appeared 

or answered. Plaintiffs requested that the clerk enter default on August 19, 2014, which the clerk 

did the following day. Dkt. Nos. 13, 15. On December 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for 

default judgment. Dkt. No. 18. The Court grants the motion. 

Under FRCP 55(b)(2), a party may apply to the Court for entry of judgment by default. 

“The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe 

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court may consider the following factors in 

deciding whether to grant a motion for default judgment:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to 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 the 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). The second and third Eitel factors -- the 

Case 3:14-cv-02971-JD Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

merits of the claim and the sufficiency of the complaint -- are generally considered together 

because after the entry of default, well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as 

true, except as to the amount of damages. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th 

Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently states a sound cause of action for breach of fiduciary 

duty under ERISA. 

The remaining factors, on balance, also weigh in favor of granting default judgment. The 

plaintiffs will be prejudiced if default judgment is not granted because they will be left with no 

way to recover damages. The requested amount is reasonable considering the liquidated damages 

and interest mandated by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Because defendants have not appeared, there is 

no indication that their default is due to excusable neglect, that the material facts are subject to 

dispute, or that a decision on the merits will be possible. 

Defendant is ordered to pay the Trust Funds $11,455.04 in unpaid contributions, $3,774.01 

in liquidated damages and interest, $4,430.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,146.35 in costs. To the 

extent plaintiffs wish to pursue other unpaid contributions, they should do so in a separate action. 

The Court will not retain jurisdiction. The action is dismissed and the case is closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02971-JD Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 2