Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00035/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00035-1/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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEN WALTERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JERRY DEAN FREY, individually and doing

business as J.D. FREY EXCAVATING,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-0035 PJH (EMC)

ORDER RE HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 16)

Judge Hamilton has referred Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment to the undersigned for a

report and recommendation. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ brief and accompanying submissions, the

Court hereby determines that there should be a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ motion shall

be heard on August 31, 2005, at 10:30 a.m.

In addition, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence related to

the following by August 3, 2005.

1. Trust Agreements

According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Jerry Dean Frey is bound by the trust agreements

governing the trust funds. However, it is not clear to the Court why this is the case. In spite of what

Plaintiffs claim, see McBride Decl. ¶ 3, the project agreements between J.D. Frey Excavating and the

union do not make any reference to either the trust funds or the trust agreements; rather, the project

agreements simply identify the wage rates and fringe benefit rates. Furthermore, it does not appear
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

that the Master Agreement (incorporated by reference in the project agreements) makes reference to

the trust funds or trust agreements.

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing and/or evidence

demonstrating that Mr. Frey is bound by the trust agreements. Plaintiffs should also discuss how

their claims under ERISA and the LMRA will be affected if Mr. Frey is not so bound (e.g., do

Plaintiffs still have a valid ERISA claim?).

2. Unpaid Contributions

In their motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs assert that Matthew J. Trueb worked a total of

171 hours and Craig E. Smith a total of 152 hours, but the paystubs provided by Plaintiffs do not

match up with these numbers. The paystubs for December 2000 and January 2001 for Mr. Trueb

total 245.5 hours, not 171, and the paystubs for December 2000 and January 2001 for Mr. Smith

total 184 hours, not 152. See McBride Decl., Ex. D (paystubs).

Moreover, it does not seem that all of the hours reflected in the paystubs should count

because the relevant project agreement did not go into effect until December 4, 2000. See id., Ex. A

(12/4/00 project agreement). For example, none of the 32 hours on Mr. Trueb’s paystub for the

period November 25, 2000, to December 1, 2000, should count (that is, unless Plaintiffs show that

this time period is covered by the earlier project agreement of September 22, 1999). See id. (9/22/99

project agreement). Nor should all of the 24 hours on Mr. Trueb’s paystub for the period December

2, 2000, to December 6, 2000, count. Similarly, not all of the 40 hours on Mr. Smith’s paystub for

the period December 2, 2000, to December 8, 2000, should count. Unfortunately, in both cases, it is

impossible to tell which hours on the paystubs for these periods should count and which ones should

not.

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing and evidence as

to the proper number of hours for Mr. Trueb and Mr. Smith and demonstrate how they arrived at that

number.

3. Liquidated Damages and Interest

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to liquidated damages and interest as specified in the

trust agreements. See id., Ex. C (representative trust agreement) (providing for liquidated damages
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

in “the sum of $35 per delinquency or 15% of the amount of the contribution or contributions due,

whichever is greater” and interest of “twelve per cent (12% per annum) until [the contributions] are

paid”). However, as noted above, it is not clear that Mr. Frey is bound by the trust agreements,

whether under ERISA or the LMRA.

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing and/or evidence

explaining whether Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages and interest if Mr. Frey is not bound

by the trust agreements (or, under ERISA, double interest under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) pursuant to

(B) and (C) with the “default” interest rate prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6621).

In addition, assuming that the liquidated damages and interest specified in the trust

agreements do apply, the Court orders Plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing and/or evidence

to explain how they arrived at the final total of $2,165.01 for liquidated damages and interest. In

other words, Plaintiffs should provide specific calculations supporting this sum. The Employer

Statement of Account submitted by Plaintiffs, see McBride Decl., Ex. E, is insufficient.

Plaintiffs should serve a copy of this order on Mr. Frey within three days of the filing of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005

_________________________

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge