Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05396/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05396-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEN WALTERS and JOHN BONILLA, in their

respective capacities as Trustees of the

OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND

WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA; TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION

TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS;

TRUSTEES OF THE PENSIONED OPERATING

ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND;

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS

AND PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS PREAPPRENTICESHIP; APPRENTICE AND

JOURNEYMAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

TRAINING FUND; TRUSTEES OF THE

OPERATING ENGINEERS VACATION AND

HOLIDAY PLAN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GOLDEN GATE CRANE & RIGGING, INC., et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01906 WHA

Consolidated With

No. C 06-05396 WHA

ORDER TO JUSTIFY

CALCULATION OF

DAMAGES AND

CALCULATION OF 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Pending is a request for entry of default judgment. In reviewing the record submitted by

plaintiffs, the Court has become concerned over a number of discrepancies. These must be

answered despite the fact that it now appears that one or more defendants have now attempted

to file an answer. This order requires plaintiffs show cause as to the following issues:

1. CALCULATION OF DAMAGES.

In this ERISA action, plaintiffs have filed two separate suits alleging defendants’ failure

to contribute to plaintiff trust funds as required by the agreement defendants signed and the

Case 3:06-cv-05396-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiffs refer to different amounts throughout their motion. Mr. McBride’s declaration first refers to

an assessment of $46,816.94 in paragraph 6 but he then states that the amount owed is $48,506.17 in the

penultimate paragraph of his declaration. Similarly, plaintiffs’ motion begins by quoting the initial figure of

$46,816.94 on page 4 and then requests $48,506.17 in its request for relief on page 6. If the larger figure is

meant to reflect continued interest charges, plaintiffs have failed to explain the increase. The Court is skeptical

that this increase is due to continued interest charges because Mr. McBride’s July 2006 declaration also seeks

$48,506.17 in paragraph 11.

2

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Labor Management Relations Act

of 1947 (ERISA). Plaintiffs first brought suit only against defendant Golden Gate Crane &

Rigging (“Golden Gate Crane”); plaintiffs filed a second action against defendant Robert

Newberry individually and doing business as Golden Gate Crane, defendant Sue Newberry

individually and doing business as Golden Gate Crane, and Golden Gate Crane, the corporation. 

The first suit seeks unpaid contributions plus damages from January 2004 through May 2005;

the second suit seeks unpaid contributions plus damages from June 2005 through May 2006. 

On December 15, 2006, the Court consolidated these actions.

Plaintiffs requested liquidated damages and interest with no indication of how those

figures were calculated. In C 06-01906 WHA, the first action plaintiffs filed, plaintiffs have

requested damages of $48,506.17 in the liquidated damages and interest category.1

 In studying

the application, the Court has tried repeatedly to come up with a calculation that would justify

the amount plaintiffs are seeking. No method, however, comes close using their 12% interest

rate and 15% liquidated damages rate. Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate how they have arrived

at their calculated damages is baffling. In the first action where plaintiffs seek $48,506.17 in

liquidated damages and interest, defendants currently owe plaintiffs $72,559.24 in unpaid

contributions. Defendants initially owed plaintiffs $117,673.15 for unpaid contributions from

January 2004 through May 2005. Defendants paid $52,321.69 of the unpaid contributions on an

unknown date. Plaintiffs have failed to provide information regarding the relevant dates.

The Court cannot grant plaintiffs’ requested relief without proof of how plaintiffs

arrived at those amounts. The Master Agreement governing this relationship stated that interest

was assessed against the whole amount unpaid (Master Agreement, December 1 McBride Decl.

Exh. C § 12.13.00). Since defendants paid a portion of that total on an unknown date, interest

calculations would vary depending upon the total amount defendants owed at any given time. 

Case 3:06-cv-05396-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 Plaintiffs state that $12,878.89 of the $72,559.24 currently owed in unpaid contributions was

uncovered during an audit of defendants’ records for January 2004 through May 2005.

3

The unpaid contributions began accruing in January 2004. There is no way to check the

accuracy of plaintiffs’ figures against this backdrop.

Mr. McBride, in his declaration, refers to a statement prepared by his office which

details the amount of work performed by Golden Gate Crane employees, the contributions made

by the employer, the amount of liquidated damages and interest owed as a result

(December 1 McBride Decl. ¶ 9). It is unclear why plaintiffs have failed to present this

information.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide declarations by Mr. McBride and Ms. Lozano-Batista

detailing their calculations and how they arrived at the requested amount of damages, not only

in the liquidated damages and interest category in first action C 06-01906 WHA but for all

categories of requested relief. This includes plaintiffs’ request for unpaid contributions in

both C 06-01906 WHA and C 06-05396 WHA, liquidated damages and interest in

C 06-05396 WHA, and the additional amount uncovered during an audit of Golden Gate

Crane’s records in C 06-01906 WHA.2

 These declarations must be filed by JANUARY 8, 2007,

at NOON.

2. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

As for the attorney’s fees request, Ms. Lozano-Batista’s declaration simply states the

work performed by “Plaintiffs’ attorneys.” It does not categorize what matters were worked on

by which attorney nor does it state the amount of time spent on each task. 

For each project, there must be a detailed description of the work, giving the date, hours

expended, attorney name and task for each work entry in chronological order. A “project”

means a deposition, a motion, a witness interview, and so forth. It does not mean generalized

statements like “trial preparation” or “attended trial.” It includes discrete items like “prepare

supplemental trial brief on issue X.” The following is an example of time collected by a

project.

Case 3:06-cv-05396-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

PROJECT: ABC DEPOSITION (2 DAYS IN FRESNO)

Date TimekeeperDescription Hours x Rate = Fee

01-08-01 XYZ Assemble and photocopy exhibits for

use in deposition

2.0 $100 $200

01-09-01 RST Review evidence and prepare to

examine ABC at deposition

4.5 $200 $900

01-10-01 XYZ Research issue of work-product

privilege asserted by deponent

1.5 $100 $150

01-11-01 RST Prepare for and take deposition 8.5 $200 $1700

01-12-01 RST Prepare for and take deposition 7.0 $200 $1400

 Project Total: 23.5 $4350

All entries for a given project must be presented chronologically one after the other,

i.e., uninterrupted by other projects, so that the timeline for each project can be readily grasped. 

Entries can be rounded to the nearest quarter-hour and should be net of write-down for

inefficiency or other cause. A separate summary chart of total time and fees sought per

individual timekeeper (not broken down by project) should also be shown at the end of the

declaration. This cross-tabulation will help illuminate all timekeepers’ respective workloads

and roles in the overall case.

The declaration must also set forth (a) the qualifications, experience and role of each

attorney or paralegal for whom fees are sought; (b) the normal rate ordinarily charged for each

in the relevant time period; (c) how the rates were comparable to prevailing rates in the

community for like-skilled professionals; and (d) proof that “billing judgment” was exercised. 

On the latter point, as before, the declaration should describe adjustments made to eliminate

duplication, excess, associate-turnover expense, and so forth. These adjustments need not be

itemized but totals for the amount deleted per timekeeper should be stated. The declaration

must identify the records used to compile the entries and, specifically, state whether and the

extent to which the records were contemporaneous versus retroactively prepared. It must state

Case 3:06-cv-05396-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the extent to which any entries include estimates (and what any estimates were based on). 

Estimates and/or use of retroactively-made records may or may not be allowed, depending on

the facts and circumstances.

No later than JANUARY 8, 2007 at NOON, plaintiffs’ attorneys must file and serve a more

detailed declaration, organized by discrete projects, breaking down, by attorney, all attorney and

paralegal time sought to be recovered. 

All counsel who had any role in the submission in question must appear at the hearing

on JANUARY 11, 2007 at 11:00 AM to discuss the foregoing.

* * *

One or more defendants seem to have tried to file an answer. Until the entry of default

is set aside, the answer is ineffective. Even if the default is set aside, the Court still wishes

plaintiffs’ counsel to explain the foregoing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05396-WHA Document 54 Filed 12/15/06 Page 5 of 5