Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00569/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00569-0/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALVARADO, in his No. C-05-00569 PJH (WDB)

capacity as Trustee of the 

CARPENTERS HEALTH AND ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR BRIEFING RE MOTION FOR

CALIFORNIA, et al., DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARGARET ELLEN ALVAREZ, 

Individually; MARGARET ELLEN ALVAREZ, 

Individually and dba R.J. HATLER 

CONSTRUCTION, INC.; R.J. HATLER 

CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

a California Corporation 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, filed May 16, 2005, will be heard on

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

By Wednesday, July 27, 2005, plaintiffs must file with the Court and serve on

defendants a supplemental submission addressing the following issues.

1. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) apply? If so, have plaintiffs

satisfied the standard for confirming an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA?

2. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a default judgment against Ms. Alvarez,

individually, and against R. J. Hatler Construction, Inc., confirming the Arbitration

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

Award by the Board of Adjustment in the amount $347,914.91. As the Court

understands it, the damages subsumed by the Award include the following: (i)

$120,672.06 representing delinquent contributions for the period May 2003 through

August 2003 and encompassed by the promissory note, (ii) $13,378.02 representing

liquidated damages on the delinquent contributions for the period May 2003 through

August 2003 and encompassed by the promissory note, (iii) $3,957.70 representing

interest accrued at the rate of 6% on delinquent contributions for the period May 2003

through August 2003 and encompassed by the promissory note, (iv) $190,551.94

representing delinquent contributions for the period September 2003 through January

2004,(v) $19,055.19representing liquidated damages on the delinquent contributions

for the period September 2003 through January 2004, and (vi) $300.00 representing

the cost of arbitration. In the alternative, plaintiffs ask the Court to enter judgment

on plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract (breach of the promissory note as to the

period May 2003 through August 2003 and breach of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement as to the period September 2003 through January 2004). Plaintiffs must

state whether the Court’s understanding of plaintiffs’ request is accurate.

The Court notes that the promissory note is not among the documents

introduced before the Board of Adjustment at the arbitration proceedings. Plaintiffs

must explain how the Board’s Award came to encompass the amounts reflected in the

promissory note.

3. Plaintiffs indicate that the basis for holding Ms. Alvarez individually

liable for delinquent contributions is the promissory note. However, it appears that

the promissory note obligates Ms. Alvarez to pay delinquent contributions, liquidated

damages and interest only for the period May 2003 through August 2003

($138,007.78). Is the Court’s understanding correct? What is the legal basis for

plaintiffs’ apparent request that the Court enter judgment against Ms. Alvarez

individually for the entire $347,914.91? Is it plaintiffs’ position that the Board’s

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

Award holds Ms. Alvarez individually liable for the entire $347,914.91? If so, what

is the basis for plaintiffs’ position?

4. As noted in paragraph 2 above, it does not appear to the Court that

plaintiffs are seeking interest on the delinquent contributions from the period

September 2003 through January 2004. Plaintiffs must confirm whether the Court’s

understanding is correct. If plaintiffs do seek interest on the delinquent contributions

for this period, what is the basis for plaintiffs’ position that they are entitled to

interest thereon? What is the applicable rate of interest, and what is the basis for

plaintiffs’ request for that rate? Do plaintiffs contend that interest accrues on both the

delinquent contributions and liquidated damages? If so, what is the basis for

plaintiffs’ contention that they are entitled to interest on liquidated damages? 

5. Plaintiffs request an order directing defendants to pay all sums revealed

by an audit as due and owing. If the Court requires defendants to submit to an audit

how will plaintiffs proceed following the audit? More specifically, what notice will

defendants receive of future proceedings and of the amounts plaintiffs claim are

owed, and what opportunity will defendants have to challenge the accuracy of the

audit? 

Plaintiffs seek interest on contributions due and owing, if any, as revealed by

the audit. Motion at 3:6-7. What is the source of authority for plaintiffs’ position that

they are entitled to interest? What is the applicable rate of interest and what is the

basis for plaintiffs’ request for that rate? 

6. Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees and costs for this litigation. In plaintiffs’

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition to Confirm Arbitration

Award, filed February 28, 2005, plaintiffs seek reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees

on the ground that defendants acted with “bad faith.” Memorandum at 4-6.

However, the record indicates that plaintiffs may be entitled to attorneys’ fees

pursuant to contract(s), the Board’s Award, and/or pursuant to ERISA. What is (are)

the source(s) of authority for plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees?

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

In addition, plaintiffs must respond to the following. (i) Plaintiffs must

identify which attorneys worked on this case and must present evidence of those

attorneys’ experience and credentials so that the Court can assess plaintiffs’ request

for compensation at a rate of $200.00 per hour. (ii) Plaintiffs must also present

evidence of Senior Paralegal Catherine Roussel’s experience and credentials so that

the Court can assess plaintiffs’ request for compensation at a rate of $95.00. (iii)

Plaintiffs must provide legal authority for their position that fees incurred for a

“Litigation Case Clerk” are compensable as a component of attorneys’ fees. In the

event that the Court finds that “Litigation Case Clerk” fees are reimbursable,

plaintiffs must submit evidence of Eleanor Natwick’s experience and credentials to

justify the asserted billing rate of $75.00. Plaintiffs also must identify which tasks

(and the number of hours taken to complete the task) were performed by a paralegal

and which were performed by a Litigation Case Clerk. (iv) Plaintiffs seek fees of

“approximately $700.00" for “unbilled” work. Declaration ofConcepcion E. LozanoBatista, filed May 16, 2005, at 3:17-18. Plaintiffs must submit a declaration

identifying each task encompassed by the request for reimbursement of “unbilled”

work, the amount of time attributed to that task, and who performed that task.

7. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for cost of courier service for filing

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgement and related papers. What evidence supports

plaintiffs’ request for costs of courier service for filing the Motion for Default

Judgment? 

8. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment seeks an “accounting.” Motion

at 3:9-10. Plaintiffs’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, etc., filed February 8,

2005, does not appear to seek an accounting. Do plaintiffs seek an “accounting?” If

so, how does an accounting differ from plaintiffs’ requested audit? What does this

request add to plaintiffs’ request for confirmation of the arbitration award? If this

request is not redundant or superfluous, what specific relief do plaintiffs seek? What

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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

legal authority supports plaintiffs’ contention that they are entitled to an

“accounting?”

9. The Carpenters Master Agreement attached to the Petition and to the

Declaration of Richard Alcantar indicates an effective date of June 3, 2003. See,

Petition, at Ex. A and Errata to Declaration of Richard Alcantar in Support of Motion

for Default Judgment, filed May 13, 2005, at Ex. A. It is our understanding that

plaintiffs seek delinquent contributions pertaining to work completed in May 2003.

Plaintiffs must submit a supplemental declaration stating whether the Master

Agreement in effect in May 2003 was identical to the Master Agreement attached to

the Petition and if not, specifying all relevant differences.

10. In their Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, etc., filed February 8,

2005, plaintiffs state, “but Trust Fund contribution delinquencies are excluded from

the arbitration provisions of the Agreement.” Petition at 6:22-23. What does this

statement mean? What is the basis for this statement? What is the effect of this

statement on plaintiffs’ request for an order confirming the arbitration award?

11. The Summons, filed April 5, 2005, indicates that plaintiffs served Ms.

Alvarez with the Petition and supporting papers at an address on Spruce Avenue in

Clovis, California. The record indicates that plaintiffs have served Ms. Alvarez with

subsequent documents, including plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, at an

address on Palm in Fresno, California. Plaintiffs must set forth their understanding

of Ms. Alvarez’s current location and must explain why service to the Fresno address

is adequate to notify Ms. Alvarez of these proceedings. 

IF DEFENDANTS MARGARET ELLEN ALVAREZ AND/OR R.J.

HATLER CONSTRUCTION, INC., INTEND TO RESPOND to plaintiffs’

supplemental submission or anything in plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment then

by Friday, August 5, 2005 at noon, DEFENDANTS MUST FILE with the Court,

DELIVER to the undersigned’s chambers, and SERVE on plaintiffs a statement

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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

notifying the Court that defendants intend to appear in person at the hearing on

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. at which time the Court and the parties

will discuss the appropriate manner in which to proceed.

The Court ORDERS plaintiffs’ to serve defendants with a copy of this

order on or before Friday, July 22, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: plaintiffs by email,

defendants by U.S. Mail 

and by plaintiffs, 

PJH, wdb, stats

Case 4:05-cv-00569-PJH Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 6 of 6