Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00112/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00112-1/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

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED

CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3,

AFL-CIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ERIC LAWRENCE YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-10-0112 EMC

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE

(Docket No. 14)

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Eric Lawrence Young,

which is currently set for hearing on July 14, 2010. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion and

accompanying submissions, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs provide supplemental briefing

and/or evidence as described below.

(1) In its motion, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Young is a party to a collective bargaining

agreement with the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 3. See Khtikian Decl. ¶ 4. 

The agreement provided to the Court, however, indicates that the signatories to the agreement (in

addition to the union) are (a) “Tile, Terrazzo, Marble & Restoration Contractors Association of

Northern California, Inc.” and (b) “Independent Tile Contractors.” See id., Ex. 1 (agreement). 

Plaintiffs should provide evidence establishing either that Mr. Young is a direct signatory to the

agreement or that he is an indirect signatory through “Tile, Terrazzo, Marble & Restoration

Contractors Association of Northern California, Inc.” or “Independent Tile Contractors.” 

Case 4:10-cv-00112-SBA Document 19 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

(2) Section 83 of the collective bargaining agreement submitted by Plaintiffs states that

each individual employer agrees to be bound to various trust funds agreements, including the (a)

Northern California Tile Industry Health & Welfare Fund, (b) the Northern California Tile Industry

Pension Trust Fund, and (c) the Northern California Tile Industry Apprenticeship & Training Trust

Fund. See id. (Agreement, art. X, § 83). The trustees for each of these three trust funds are

Plaintiffs in this case. However, the trustees for other trust funds are also named as Plaintiffs in this

case even though the collective bargaining agreement does not cover these other trust funds (e.g., the

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Pension Fund). Plaintiffs should clarify

whether they are seeking monies owed to any trust funds other than the three listed in (a)-(c) above. 

In addition, Plaintiffs should clarify whether the unpaid contributions requested (i.e., $57,793.84),

see Eaton Decl. ¶ 4, includes contributions owed to any trust funds other than the three listed in (a)-

(c) above.

(3) Plaintiffs have provided excerpts from the trust agreements for (a) the Northern

California Tile Industry Health & Welfare Fund and (b) the Northern California Tile Industry

Pension Trust Fund, but not (c) the Northern California Tile Industry Apprenticeship & Training

Trust Fund. Plaintiffs should provide the relevant excerpts for the third trust fund (i.e., the

Apprenticeship & Training Trust Fund).

(4) Plaintiffs are seeking $57,793.84 in unpaid contributions and $20,318.50 in

liquidated damages. See Eaton Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Plaintiffs should provide briefing and/or evidence

establishing how they calculated these sums. In providing their calculations for liquidated damages,

Plaintiffs should explain why, in their complaint, Plaintiffs estimated that liquidated damages for the

period November 1, 2008-June 30, 2009, and August 1, 2009-September 30, 2009, were $13,904.10,

see Compl. ¶ 10, while, in their motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs estimate that liquidated

damages for the same period were $20,318.50. See Eaton Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs should also explain

whether this presents a problem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(c) (providing that “[a] default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what

is demanded in the pleading”). 

Case 4:10-cv-00112-SBA Document 19 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiffs shall file and serve their supplemental papers within a week of the date of this

order. In addition, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order within three days of the date of this

order. Proofs of service shall be promptly filed with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00112-SBA Document 19 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3