Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00611/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00611-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1104 Recovery of Benefits to Employee

---

ORDER RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

EDB - 1 -

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE IBEW/NECA SOUND 

AND COMMUNICATIONS HEALTH AND 

WELFARE TRUST, IBEW NINTH 

DISTRICT PENSION TRUST, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA JOINT APPRENTICESHIP 

AND TRAINING TRUST, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA LABOR MANAGEMENT 

COOPERATION TRUST, and THE 

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT 

TRUST; and DOUG LUNG AND GERALD

PFEIFFER, TRUSTEES OF THE 

IBEW/NECA SOUND AND 

COMMUNICATIONS HEALTH AND 

WELFARE TRUST,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

NETVERSANT SOLUTIONS II LP, a 

Delaware partnership doing business in 

California,

Defendant.

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

On April 4, 2014 the court entered default against defendant Netversant Solutions II, LP. See

Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiffs Trustees of the IBEW/NECA Sound and Communications Health and 

Welfare Trust, IBEW Ninth District Pension Trust, Northern California Joint Apprenticeship and 

Case 5:14-cv-00611-RMW Document 24 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 5
ORDER RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

EDB - 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

For the Northern District of California

Training Trust, Northern California Labor Management Cooperation Trust, and the National 

Electrical Benefit Trust, and Doug Lung and Gerald Pfeiffer, trustees of the IBEW/NECA Sound 

and Communications Health and Welfare Trust (collectively, plaintiffs or “Pfeiffer”) move for 

damages pursuant to the default. Dk. No. 18. On December 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended 

motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 19. On December 12, 2014 the court held a hearing to 

determine damages.

This is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) collection case. According 

to plaintiffs, Netversant is an employer within the meaning of Sections 3(5) and 515 of ERISA, see

29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5), 1145, and an employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning 

of Section 301 of the LMRA, see 29 U.S.C. § 185. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 9, 

at ¶ 10. Netversant agreed to be bound to the terms and conditions of the most recent Collective 

Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 

(“IBEW”) and some of its local unions and Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors 

Association. FAC ¶ 7. The CBA governs the rates of pay and rules and working conditions for 

employees engaged in sound and communication industry electrical industry work. Id. The CBA 

also requires Netversant to make timely monthly contributions to trusts for fringe benefits for its 

covered employees. See Dkt. No. 18, at 3. These contribution rates are set forth in the CBA. Id.

Employers who agree to be bound by the CBA also agree to be bound to the respective Trust 

Agreements. FAC ¶ 7.

Plaintiffs brought this action after Netversant failed to pay contributions required under the 

Trust Agreements. FAC ¶¶ 11, 13. Netversant was served on March 24, 2014, Dkt. No. 14, and 

when no answer was filed, the court entered default on April 4, 2014, Dkt. No. 17. 

In their motion for damages, plaintiffs seek: (1) unpaid contributions of $25,873.47 for the 

months of September and October 2014, Dkt. No. 19, at 2; and (2) $23,000.39 in liquidated 

damages for the months of August 2013 through October 2014, id.; see also Declaration of Sandy 

Stephenson, Dkt No. 19-1, at 2–3. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees and costs of $7,220.00. Dkt. 

No. 19, at 2. The total judgment sought is $56,093.86.

1 Id.

 1 In their initial motion for default judgment, plaintiffs sought unpaid contributions for the months 

of July and August 2014 totaling $33.481.19. See Dkt. No. 18. Since filing the motion, defendants 

Case 5:14-cv-00611-RMW Document 24 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 5
ORDER RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

EDB - 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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs brought this action to enforce 29 U.S.C. §1145, which requires certain employers 

to make contributions like those at issue here in accordance with the terms of the relevant plan or 

collective bargaining agreement. Under the relevant civil enforcement statute,

[T]he court shall award the plan--

(A) the unpaid contributions,

(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,

(C) an amount equal to the greater of--

(i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or

(ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount 

not in excess of 20 percent . . . of the amount determined by the 

court under subparagraph (A),

(D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the 

defendant, and

(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).

The unpaid contributions owed to plaintiffs total $25,873.47. Dkt. No. 19, at 2; see also Dkt 

No. 19-1, at ¶ 4. Plaintiffs also ask for $23,000.39 in liquidated damages, which is equal to 10

percent of all unpaid and delinquent contributions for the months of August 2013 through October

2014. See Dkt. No. 19, at 2. However, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii) provides that a liquidated 

damages award shall not exceed 20 percent of the amount of unpaid contributions award. 

Accordingly, under the statute, the liquidated damages award available to plaintiffs is limited to 20

percent of $23,000.39, or $4,600.08.

2

 

have paid the contributions for July and August 2014, but subsequently incurred new delinquencies

in unpaid fringe benefit contributions for the months of September and October 2014. Dkt. No. 19, 

at 2.

2 Following the evidentiary hearing, the court requested that plaintiffs file a brief outlining the basis 

for their requested liquidated damages award and explaining how plaintiffs’ request can be squared 

with the language of 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii). Dkt. No. 20. As plaintiffs explain in their brief, 

courts in this district follow one of two paths regarding 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii). See Dkt. No. 

22, at 4–5. Some courts award judgments which include liquidated damages for all delinquent

contributions that exist at the time a complaint is filed, see e.g., Burns v. R.C. Knapp, Inc., Case No. 

13-5209, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154975, at *21–22 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2014) (awarding liquidated 

damages on all delinquent contributions without discussing whether award was solely statutory or

also based in part on contract), while others award liquidated damages for unpaid contributions 

under the statute and for delinquent contributions under as a matter of contract, if the trust 

agreement so provides, see e.g., Crosthwaite v. LML Enters., Case No. 13-740, 2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 151851, at *18–24 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (discussing the split within the district and 

awarding both statutory and contractual liquidated damages). The court follows the latter approach.

Case 5:14-cv-00611-RMW Document 24 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 5
ORDER RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

EDB - 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

For the Northern District of California

However, in addition to liquidated damages under Section 1132(g), the court may also enter 

judgment for liquidated damages assessed on late contributions as a matter of contract. Idaho 

Plumbers and Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United Mech. Contractors, Inc., 875 F.2d 

212, 216–18 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the Trust Agreement provides for liquidated damages of at least 

10 percent of delinquent contributions as a reasonable forecast of the loss and damage to the fund. 

See Dkt. No. 18, at 24–25. Under Idaho Plumbers, liquidated damages are an appropriate award for 

breach of contract if (1) it is “very difficult or impossible” to calculate the harm that stems from the 

breach, and (2) the amount of damages is a “reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm.”

875 F.2d at 217. (internal citations omitted). The court finds contractual liquidated damages 

appropriate here. First, harm to plaintiffs in cases like this is sufficiently difficult to calculate. See

Bd. of Trs. V. Udovch, 771 F. Supp. 1044, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“When an employer is delinquent 

in paying contributions into a fringe benefit trust fund, the fund suffers some kinds of harms that are 

very difficult to gauge.”); see also Crosthwaite, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *22–23. Second, courts 

regularly find awards of ten percent to be reasonable forecasts of compensation for delinquent 

payment, see e.g., Bd. of Trustees of Laborers Health &Welfare Trust Fund for N. California v. 

Atoll Topui Island, Inc., Case No. 6-3059, 2007 WL 174409, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007), and 

the court finds plaintiffs’ requested award reasonable under the circumstances.

3

Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to their entire requested 

liquidated damages award of $23,000.39, comprised of $4,600.08 in statutory liquidated damages 

$18,400.31 in contractual damages.

Plaintiffs requested attorneys’ fees award of $6,820.00 is reasonable. Dkt. No 18, at 6–7. 

The award is based on 17 hours of attorney time billed at $275.00 per hour and 11 hours at $195 per 

hour. See Declaration of Wan Yan Ling, Dkt No. 18-2, at 3–4. The court finds both the number of 

hours worked and hourly rates reasonable in this legal market for attorneys of similar skill and 

experience in an ERISA collections case.

 3 Moreover, the court notes that plaintiffs’ contractual liquidated damages award of $18,400.31, 

which the court construes as the total requested liquidated damages award less the statutory award, 

amounts to less than 10 percent of the delinquent payments.

Case 5:14-cv-00611-RMW Document 24 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 5
ORDER RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case No. C-14-00611-RMW

EDB - 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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs may also recover their filing costs of $400.00 in this case. Dkt. No. 18, at 7. Under 

Civil Local Rule 54-3 (“Rule 54-3”), an award of costs may include the filing fees and fees for 

service of process “to the extent reasonably required and actually incurred.” The Court finds that the 

costs sought by plaintiffs were reasonably required and actually incurred.

Therefore, the court orders that plaintiffs are entitled to recover $25,873.47 in unpaid 

contributions, $23,000.39 in liquidated damages, $6,820.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $400.00 in costs, 

for a total of $56,093.86, from defendant Netversant Solutions II, LP.

Dated: January 8, 2015 _________________________________

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00611-RMW Document 24 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 5