Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04993/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04993-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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; BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION TRUST

FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS;

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

PENSIONED OPERATING ENGINEERS

HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND;

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

OPERATING ENGINEERS AND

PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS PREAPPRENTICESHIP, APPRENTICE AND

JOURNEYMEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

TRAINING FUND; BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING

ENGINEERS VACATION AND

HOLIDAY PLAN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

DIAMOND OAKS CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC., A California

Corporation,

Defendant.

 

NO. C 04-04993 FMS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs Ken Walters and John Bonilla, in their position as trustees for several Trusts,

have sued defendant Diamond Oaks for breach of contract, and have requested a default

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). A default was entered against

Defendant on April 19, 2005. In addition to claiming missed fringe benefit contributions of

Case 3:04-cv-04993-FMS Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 4
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

$13,431.60, Plaintiffs also claim liquidated damages and interest of $26,157.73 for the period

of December 2000 through 2004. Further, Plaintiffs also request the Court to: 1) issue an

order directing Defendant to submit to an audit; 2) require Defendant to pay all amounts due

pursuant to the audit; 3) require Defendant to pay all reasonable attorneys fees and costs; 4)

injunctive relief requiring Defendant to comply with the monthly contributions; 5) an

accounting between Plaintiffs and Defendant and 6) any other relief that may be appropriate. 

Hearing on this motion is scheduled for June 23, 2005 at 2:00 pm. 

Based on the complaint and the motion for default judgment and supporting affidavits,

Plaintiffs’ motion is insufficient to support both the damages award and the equitable relief it

seeks. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant was a member of the Engineering Utility Contract

Association (EUCA) and, thus, required to comply with the terms and conditions of the

Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 master Agreement for Northern California, which it

allegedly did not do. The Master Contract was submitted with the Complaint as Exhibit A. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a party may apply to the court to

enter judgment after default is entered. If necessary, however, the court may conduct a hearing

in order to investigate the matters before it, or to determine the amount of damages due, if any. 

Id. Whether or not damages are awarded is discretionary. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Thus, before a court enters judgment, it may review the following

factors:

1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, 2) the

merits of plaintiffs 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 material facts, 6) whether the default was

Case 3:04-cv-04993-FMS Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 4
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

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).

IV. ANALYSIS

The complaint, motion and supporting affidavits fail to adequately support

Plaintiffs’ request for judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ papers are deficient in the

following areas:

1) There is no evidence demonstrating that Defendant was a member of the

EUCA, and entered into a contract with the Operating Engineers Local Union. 

2) There is no explanation of the contractual basis for the alleged unpaid

contributions of $13,431.60 and how this amount was calculated.

3) There is no explanation of the contractual basis for the liquidated damages,

and why Plaintiffs are entitled to both liquidated and compensatory damages.

4) Plaintiffs do not explain why a full audit of Defendant’s records should not

be completed before moving for default judgment.

5) Plaintiffs fail to explain why the equitable relief of injunction and accounting

are necessary, what irreparable harm is at stake, and why money damages are

insufficient. 

6) Plaintiffs fail to show why the suit is not barred by the statute of limitations.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-04993-FMS Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 4
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

V. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to submit to the Court, within ten (10) days of this

order, evidence demonstrating why the motion for default judgment should not be

denied. If Plaintiffs fail to respond within the 10 day period, the motion will be denied

and the June 23, 2005 hearing will be vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ 

FERN M. SMITH

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04993-FMS Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 4 of 4