Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04307/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04307-4/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 1

 Plaintiffs dismissed Roger Pitcher as a defendant. See

Docket Nos. 15 and 16. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TOTTEN, JOSE MORENO, in their

capacities as Trustees of the

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA;

LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY TRUST

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA;

LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and LABORERS

TRAINING AND RETRAINING TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEX PEGUES, individually; ROGER

PITCHER, individually; ALEX PEGUES

and ROGER PITCHER, individually and

dba C&C MAINTENANCE SERVICE and C&C

MAINTENANCE SERVICE, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-4307-SC

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Larry Totten et al. ("Plaintiffs") filed this

action against Defendants Alex Pegues, both individually and dba

C&C Maintenance Service ("Defendants")1, alleging causes of action

for violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"). 

 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 7
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-

Judgment. Defendants have not filed an opposition, though they

were served with a copy of the motion and given adequate time to

respond. On three separate occasions, the Court granted

Defendants' extended time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion. See

Docket Nos. 37, 39, 44. The Court stated that the most recent

extension order, dated November 3, 2006, was the last extension

the Court would grant Defendants. See Docket No. 44. Despite

this clear warning, Defendants failed to file any response. 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'

Motion for Summary Judgment and AWARDS Plaintiffs damages of

$28,837.49. The Court also AWARDS Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and

costs, subject to the Court's review and approval of Plaintiffs'

offer of proof to be submitted within 30 days of this order.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs sued Defendants Alex Pegues and C&C Maintenance

Service to recover delinquent contributions to several Laborers

Trust Funds. See First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 4. 

Defendants agreed to the terms of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement ("CBA") with the Northern California District Council of

Laborers by signing the Letter of Understanding on March 19, 2004

and the Laborers' Master Agreement ("Master Agreement") on June

16, 2004. See Hagan Decl., Ex. A. The CBA incorporates the terms

of the Master Agreement, id. at Ex. B, and the Laborers Trust

Agreements, id. at Ex. C. See Hagan Decl. at ¶ 3. The Agreements

require each individual employer, including Defendants, to make

timely contributions at a specified rate for each hour worked by

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 7
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-

each employee covered under the Agreements. See id. at Ex. B, §

28. The Agreements also require Defendants to report wage and

hour data to the Trust Funds and allow a Trust Fund Auditor to

review any relevant records upon request. See id. at Ex. B., § 7. 

After an auditor finds a delinquent employer, 1.5% monthly

interest is added to delinquent contributions and liquidated

damages are assessed at $150 per month. See id. at Ex. B, § 28. 

On December 14, 2004, a Field Auditor reviewed Defendants'

records to determine their liability under the CBA. See Sorensen

Decl. ¶ 6. At that time, Defendants failed to produce some of the

required documents, but from the information available, the Field

Auditor was able to determine that Defendants owed at least

$29,510. See id. at ¶¶ 7-10. Subsequently, a general contractor

paid $7,832.90 owed by Defendants, reducing the amount owed. See

id. at ¶ 10. However, because Defendants refused to pay the

delinquent contributions, liquidated damages continued to accrue. 

See id. At present, based on the audit, Defendants owe $18,767.78

in contributions and $10,069.71 in liquidated damages, a total of

$28,837.49. Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue of fact exists when the

non-moving party produces evidence on which a reasonable trier of

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 7
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-

fact could find in its favor viewing the record as a whole in

light of the evidentiary burden the law places on that party. 

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252-56 (1986). 

Summary judgment is therefore appropriate against a party "who

fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party

will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at

322-23. The more implausible the claim or defense asserted by the

opposing party, the more persuasive its evidence must be to avoid

summary judgment, see Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), but "[t]he evidence of the

non-moving party is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences

are to be drawn in its favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants' Legal Liability

Defendants were bound by the CBA after signing the

Agreements. On behalf of C&C Maintenance Service, Defendant Alex

Pegues signed the Letter of Understanding on March 19, 2004 and

the Laborers' Master Agreement on June 16, 2004. See Hagan Decl.,

Ex. A. The Master Agreement states that its provisions remain in

effect until terminated and there is no evidence that Defendants

terminated the Agreement. Thus, Defendants are still bound by the

terms of the CBA. 

Under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145:

Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a 

multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the

terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 7
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-

extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in

accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such

agreement.

29 U.S.C. § 1145. As a signatory to the plan, Defendants have

violated ERISA by failing to make the proper contributions under

the Trust Agreements. 

B. Unpaid Contributions

The clear terms of collective bargaining agreements are to be

strictly construed by federal courts. See Irwin v. Carpenters

Health and Welfare Trust Fund for California, 745 F.2d 553, 557

(9th Cir. 1984). Section 28A of the Master Agreement requires

Defendants to "pay hourly contributions for each hour paid for

and/or worked." Hagan Decl., Ex. B. Accordingly, Defendants owe

Plaintiffs the hourly contributions defined by the CBA. 

Plaintiffs, having found that Defendants were not paying

contributions to the Trust Funds, requested an audit, which was

performed by the Field Auditor in December of 2004. See Sorensen

Decl. Though Defendants failed to provide all the requested

documentation, the Field Auditor was able to determine Defendants'

liability from a binder containing copies of payroll checks and

workers compensation insurance reports. See id. at ¶ 6. The

Field Auditor Determined that Defendants owed $18,767.78 in

contributions. See id. at ¶ 10, Ex. C. 

Plaintiffs' calculation of Defendants' delinquent

contributions is appropriate under Ninth Circuit law. Once the

Trust Funds prove damages and Defendants' failure to keep adequate

records, the burden shifts to Defendants to come forward with

evidence of the work its employees actually performed. See Brick

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 5 of 7
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-

Masons Pension Trust v. Industrial Fence & Supply, Inc., 839 F.2d

1333, 1338-39 (9th Cir. 1988). If Defendants fail to produce the

appropriate documentation, Plaintiffs "are entitled as a matter of

law to recover contributions for all hours worked by these

[employees] during the [period] in which they were shown to have

performed some covered work for [Defendants]." Id. at 1339. The

documents used by the Field Auditor satisfy Plaintiffs' burden. 

See Sorensen Decl. Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden

to show that Plaintiffs' calculations or documents are incorrect. 

At one point, Defendant Alex Pegues claimed that the relevant

employees were not his, but this claim is undermined by the fact

that they are listed in his payroll records. See id. at ¶ 7-8,

Ex. C. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants are liable for

$18,767.78 in unpaid contributions.

C. Liquidated Damages

Under the Trust Agreements, employers who fail to pay

contributions are liable for liquidated damages. See Hagan Decl.,

Ex. B at § 7C. Liquidated damages include 1.5% monthly interest

on unpaid contributions and $150 per month for internal

administrative costs. Id. at § 7D, 7E. Under § 502(g)(2) of

ERISA, the Trust Funds are entitled to interest and liquidated

damages. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Plaintiffs are entitled to

liquidated damages when: "(1) the fiduciary obtains a judgment in

favor of the plan, (2) unpaid contributions exist at the time of

suit, and (3) the plan provides for liquidated damages." Idaho

Plumbers and Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 6 of 7
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 -7-

In this case, Plaintiffs have satisfied all three parts of the

test: they are entitled to judgment, they have shown the existence

of unpaid contributions, and the plan provides for liquidated

damages. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages and

interest of $10,069.71. See Sorensen Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.

D. Attorneys' Fees and Costs

The Trust Agreements contain a provision for recovery of

attorneys' fees and costs in the event an individual employer

defaults on contributions. See Hagan Decl., Ex. C, 11. In

addition, ERISA § 502(g)(2) authorizes Plaintiffs' recovery of

attorneys' fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). The

Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and

costs under the CBA. Plaintiffs are ordered to file supplemental

declarations indicating the amounts requested and the underlying

calculations within 30 days of this order.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'

Motion for Summary Judgment and AWARDS Plaintiffs damages of

$28,837.49, consisting of $18,767.78 in unpaid contributions and

$10,069.71 in interest and liquidated damages. The Court also

AWARDS Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs, subject to the

Court's review and approval of Plaintiffs' offer of proof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 48 Filed 03/19/07 Page 7 of 7