Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-13/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH &

WELFARE TRUST FUND, MIKE GARCIA,

Trustee, CHARLES GILCHRIST, Trustee,

RAYMOND C. NANN, Trustee, LARRY T.

SMITH, Trustee,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-3078 CW

PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust

Fund and trustees Mike Garcia, Charles Gilchrist, Raymond Nann and

Larry Smith move for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. 

Defendant Advance Building Maintenance opposes the motions. 

Plaintiffs' motions are under submission. However, Defendant

concedes that it owes Plaintiffs a significant amount of unpaid

contributions and Plaintiffs argue that, absent injunctive relief,

Defendant's sole shareholder "will dissipate the corporate assets

and render the Corporation insolvent." Plaintiffs' Motion at 25.

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 169 Filed 09/18/07 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

"The basis for injunctive relief in the federal courts has

always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal

remedies." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). 

To establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a moving

party must demonstrate either:

(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable harm, or

(2) that there exist serious questions regarding the merits

and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.

Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th

Cir. 1987); California Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd., 774

F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1985); see also William Inglis & Sons

Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir.

1975); County of Alameda v. Weinberger, 520 F.2d 344, 349 (9th Cir.

1975). The test is a "continuum in which the required showing of

harm varies inversely with the required showing of

meritoriousness.” Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1217 (quoting San

Diego Comm. Against Registration and the Draft v. Governing Bd. of

Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 790 F.2d 1471, 1473 n.3 (9th Cir.

1986)).

Here, there is no question regarding the merit of this portion

of Plaintiffs' claim; Defendant concedes that it owes $232,130.76

in unpaid contributions for the period January 1, 1999 through

December 31, 2002. Further, Plaintiffs provide evidence that

supports their argument that, absent injunctive relief, they likely

will not receive the amount owed. See Miller Declaration ¶ 7. 

The Court hereby enjoins Defendant from paying any dividends,

bonuses or extraordinary salary to its officers or directors until

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 169 Filed 09/18/07 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

1

In January through May, 2007, Defendant made $50,000 in

payments toward the $232,130.76 of delinquent contributions. 

2The Trust agreement between the parties provides for

liquidated damages at a rate of twenty percent of the delinquent

contributions where a lawsuit is filed to recover those

contributions. This amount represents twenty percent of the full

$232,130.76 of agreed-upon delinquent contributions. Although

Defendant has made $50,000 of payments toward that amount, the

payments were not made until after this lawsuit was filed.

3

after $159,006.56 has been paid in full. This amount represents

the sum of (1) $182,130.76, the amount of unpaid contributions

which the parties agree Defendant still owes to Plaintiffs1, and

(2) $46,426.15, the liquidated damages related to the agreed-upon

unpaid benefits2 less (3) $69,550.35, the amount of overpayments

Defendant claims it made for the period January 1, 1999 through

December 31, 2002.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/18/07

Dated: CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 169 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3