Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03022/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03022-0/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

1

 Plaintiffs are: Bay Area Painters and Tapers Pension Fund, Bay Area Painters and Tapers

Health Fund, Bay Area Painters and Tapers Beneficial and Holiday Fund, Bay Area Painters and Tapers

Joint Apprenticeship Training Funds, and their Joint Boards of Trustees, Fred Inman, David Ayala and

District Council 16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAY AREA PAINTERS AND TAPERS

PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs.

 v.

MIKE NELSON COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. _______________________________________

No. C 05-3022 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 7]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Attorneys'

Fees against Defendant Mike Nelson Company, Inc.("Defendant"). Defendant has made no appearance

in this case, and filed no response to this motion. Having read and considered the papers submitted

to the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) the Court finds the matter appropriate for resolution

without a hearing. The Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs1

 are employee benefit plans pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq. ("ERISA"). The Joint Boards of Trustees of those benefit plans are

the benefit plans' named fiduciaries under ERISA § 402(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(a). Fred Inman is a

Chairman and David Ayala is the Secretary of the Joint Boards of Trustees of the Plaintiff Funds, and

are fiduciaries of those Funds. On July 26, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint to compel Defendant to

make payment on employee benefit contributions due and unpaid during the period from April through

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 6
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

June 2005, and any additional contributions and dues payable to Plaintiffs at the time of judgment.

[Docket No. 1]. Defendant was served with the summons and complaint on August 10, 2005.

Defendant has failed to answer, move to dismiss the complaint, or to otherwise make an

appearance in this action. Consequently, on August 31, 2005, the Clerk of this Court entered default

against Defendant [Docket No. 6]. Plaintiffs presently move the Court for default judgment.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs have provided portions of the collective bargaining

agreement between Painters' Local Union 294 and The Fresno FCA (the "collective bargaining

agreement"). Michele Stafford Declaration ("Stafford Decl.") Ex. A. Defendant is a signatory to this

agreement. Complaint ¶ 11; Stafford Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A. Pursuant to the collective bargaining

agreement, Defendant agreed to submit to Plaintiffs monthly reports of hours worked by its employees,

and to regularly pay to Plaintiffs certain sums of money based on the number of monthly hours worked

by Defendant's employees. Complaint ¶ 13. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant has made only a partial

payment of contributions owed for hours worked during the month of April, 2005, and has failed to

make any payment of contributions owing to Plaintiffs for hours worked for the months of May and

June, 2005. Complaint ¶ 14.

At the time the motion for default judgment was filed, on September 26, 2005, Plaintiff sought

judgment in the amount of $77,353,35 for unpaid contributions due from April, May, June, July, and

August, 2005, 10% liquidated damages and interest thereon, and attorneys fees and costs. On November

22, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Declaration and Amended Proposed Judgment in which they

request a new total of $100,697.70. This new amount includes unpaid contributions due from September

and October, 2005, attorneys fees incurred since the filing of the original motion for default judgment,

and additional interest accrued on the contributions owed at the time the original motion was filed.

[Docket Nos. 14 & 15.]

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Procedural Considerations in Granting a Default Judgment

There is a two-step process to secure a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 55. First, plaintiffs must seek an entry of default under Federal Rule of

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Civil Procedure 55(a). Once the default is entered, plaintiffs may then seek a default

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (2). As noted above, on August 31 2005, the

Clerk of the Court entered default entered against Defendant. Thus, the only question

remaining is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment. 

A formal hearing on a default judgment motion is not required in every case. See

U.S. v. DeFrantz, 708 F.2d 310, 312-13 (7th Cir. 1983) (finding that district court did not err

in refusing to hold a hearing where the motion for default judgment indicated the amount of

damages sought); see also Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981) (emphasis

added) ("It is well settled that a default judgment for money may not be entered without a

hearing unless the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical

calculation."). Moreover, the Court may adjudicate a motion for default judgment based on

the affidavits submitted by the parties. E.g., Transportes Aereos De Angola v. Jet Traders

Invest. Corp., 624 F.Supp. 264 (D.Del. 1985).

B. Substantive Considerations in Granting a Default Judgment

The decision of whether to grant or deny a request for default judgment lies within

the sound discretion of the district court. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.

1980) (affirming denial of motion for default judgment and sua sponte dismissal of

plaintiff’s claims). A default judgment may be denied where the Court determines that no

justifiable claim has been alleged or that default judgment is inappropriate for other reasons. 

In exercising its discretion, the district court is guided by consideration of the following

factors:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s

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 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) (affirming denial of motion for

default judgment where district court had serious reservations concerning the substantive

merit of the claims, a large amount of damages were at issue, and there was a factual dispute

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 6
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

with regard to the matters alleged in the pleadings). 

DISCUSSION

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted the Declarations of Michele Stafford,

Counsel for Plaintiffs, and Rose Cortez, an employee of the administrator of the Plaintiff

Trust Funds.

Plaintiffs have introduced evidence which clearly supports their claims under

ERISA. The collective bargaining agreement expressly obligates Defendant to make

contributions to its employees' trust funds. See Michele Stafford Declaration ("Stafford

Decl."), Ex. A Art. 3, Ex. B Art. 7 ¶ 1. Furthermore, Defendant is required to submit

monthly reports to Plaintiffs. See Stafford Decl., Ex. A Art. 4 ¶ B, Ex. B Art. 7 ¶ 7(a). 

Defendant has made absolutely no response to this action. The Court therefore FINDS that

Plaintiffs are clearly entitled to judgment in their favor, and ORDERS Defendant to submit

the monthly transmittal reports as required under the collective bargaining agreement.

In addition to the owed monthly employer contribution transmittals, Plaintiffs

request the principal, liquidated damages and interest owed thereon. The production of the

monthly transmittals is proper given the evidence Plaintiffs have provided with regard to the

obligation of Defendants to make monthly contributions under the collective bargaining

agreement. However, this amount is currently unknown, and only estimated. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), "[i]f, in order to enable the

court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to ... determine the amount

of damages ... the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems

necessary and proper ..." F.R.C.P. 55(b)(2). The Court FINDS that determination of the

total amount of monetary damages owed, and all matters connected with that determination,

is appropriate for adjudication by a magistrate judge.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT default judgment be entered against Defendant

Mike Nelson Company, Inc. The Court finds that the determination of the total amount of

damages owed as a result of this judgment is appropriate for adjudication by a magistrate. 

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Accordingly, 

(1) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, all matters concerning the amount of

monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees owed to Plaintiffs are referred to a Magistrate

Judge.

(2) The Magistrate Judge shall supervise and issue findings and recommendations

regarding Plaintiffs' application for fees and all matters connected thereto. The Magistrate

Judge shall file the findings and recommendations with the Clerk of the Court and serve a

copy on the parties in this action. 

(3) Unless otherwise provided, within 10 days of the service of the findings and

recommendations, any party may serve and file objections thereto, together with notice

setting the objections for hearing before this Court. The objecting party shall note each

particular finding and recommendation to which an objection is made, shall note the legal

authority for the objection, and shall propose alternative findings or recommendations.

(4) Unless otherwise provided, within 10 days of the service of the objections, any

party may serve and file a response thereto. Within 5 days of the service of the response,

the objecting party may file a reply thereto.

(5) The memoranda and other papers filed in support of the objections, in opposition

thereto, and reply shall conform with Civil Local Rules 7-1 to 7-12.

(6) This Court's review of the findings and recommendations and objections thereto

will conform with Civil Local Rule 72-3.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Mike Nelson Company, Inc. shall

file remittance reports with Plaintiffs on a monthly basis as is required by the underlying

collective bargaining agreement.

The Case Management Conference is hereby cancelled and there is no need for

further appearance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Dated: 12/19/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03022-SBA Document 16 Filed 12/21/05 Page 6 of 6