Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04209/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04209-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Bonilla
Plaintiff
Essayons, Inc.
Defendant
Terry E. Smith
Defendant
Ken Walters
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ken Walters and John Bonilla as

Trustees of the Operating Engineers

Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

Terry E. Smith, an individual, Terry

E. Smith, individually and dba

Essayons, Inc., Essayons Inc., a

California corporation,

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C-05-4209 WDB

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION RE MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

By June 28, 2006, plaintiffs must file with the Court and serve on

defendants supplemental submissions (argument and/or evidence) that respond to

the following.

1. Do plaintiffs seek another audit? The Complaint includes a claim for

an audit, and plaintiffs mention an audit in the notice portion of their Motion for

Default Judgment (“Motion”). Motion at 2:17. However, it appears that plaintiffs

have already conducted an audit that covers the three periods for which delinquent

contributions are sought, and plaintiffs do not address their alleged entitlement to

an audit in the “discussion” section of their Motion. Motion at 4:6, 4:19, 4:25

(audit references for each of three periods).

Case 3:05-cv-04209-WHA Document 27 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 5
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

If plaintiffs seek an audit they must specify the time period of the requested

audit and set forth the legal and factual bases that would justify a second audit. 

Additionally, plaintiffs must describe the procedure that will be followed by the

auditor and must state whether this procedure provides defendants with an

opportunity to participate and/or to object.

2. In their Complaint plaintiffs name defendant “Essayon’s, Inc.” as the

dba of Terry Smith and as a California corporation. Is Essayon’s, Inc.,

incorporated, and if so, what is plaintiffs’ understanding about Terry Smith’s

position vis a vis the corporation?

3. The employer that is named as a party to the Material Producers and

Recycling Agreement is “Essayon’s Crushing.” Complaint at Ex. C. Essayon’s

Crushing is not a named defendant in the Complaint. What is the basis for

plaintiffs’ position that the named defendants are bound by the “Material

Agreement?” What is Essayon’s Crushing’s relationship to the named

defendants? Does the Court have\need jurisdiction over Essayon’s Crushing?

4. What is the basis for plaintiffs’ position that the Material Producers

and Recycling Agreement incorporates the Master Agreement? Complaint at 2-3;

Motion at 3:21-24. In contrast to the “Independent Agreement” which clearly

states that the Master Agreement is incorporated therein (see Complaint, Ex. B.,

§2), the “Material Agreement” states, “[a]ny [specified] plant . . . shall be operated

under the . . . Master Agreement.” See, Complaint, Ex. C, §01.03.00 (emphasis

added). Moreover, the Material Agreement expressly incorporates another

agreement, suggesting that if the drafters had intended to do so with the Master

Agreement they would have done so expressly. See, Complaint, Ex. C,

§§01.01.01 and 07.01.00.

If the provisions of the Master Agreement relating to fringe benefit

contributions are not “incorporated” into the Material Agreement what is the basis

Case 3:05-cv-04209-WHA Document 27 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 5
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

for a finding that defendants are bound by the terms of the Trust Agreements with

respect to work conducted pursuant to the Material Agreement?

5. Plaintiffs appear to seek unpaid contributions for three periods: (1)

January 1, 1998 through June 30, 2000, (2) October 2001 through August 2005,

and (3) January 2004 through June 2005.

Plaintiffs must confirm that the first period for which delinquent

contributions are sought ends June 30, 2000. The Complaint says 2002 at 3:23

and 2005 at 6:20. The Motion says 2005 at 4:11 and 2000 at 3:9 and 6:27. 

Exhibit D to the Complaint and the McBride Declaration indicate that the audit

period ended in 2000. 

Why are some amounts sought referred to as “estimated?” E.g., Motion at

3:12, 7:2 and 7:4.

6. What amount do plaintiffs seek for the period January 2004 - June

2005? What items are encompassed in this amount (e.g., unpaid contributions,

liquidated damages and/or interest)? Under which agreement was the amount

incurred? In their Complaint plaintiffs indicate that they seek $279.43 and

$231.91. Complaint at 4. In contrast, on at least one occasion plaintiff’s Motion

refers only to the amount $279.43. Motion at 3:12-14. Additionally, the

Complaint indicates that each of the amounts sought represents “fringe benefit

contributions and liquidated damages and interest.” Complaint at 4 and 6

(emphasis added). Whereas the Motion describes these amounts as “$279.43 in

delinquent contributions” and “$231.91 in liquidated damages and interest.” 

Motion at 4:26-27.

7. Do plaintiffs seek interest in connection with each of the three

periods? Plaintiffs do not address their alleged entitlement to interest in the

“discussion” section of their Motion although “interest” is mentioned in the brief

as well as in the McBride Declaration. Also, plaintiffs mention interest in

Case 3:05-cv-04209-WHA Document 27 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 5
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

connection with delinquent contributions from the first and third periods (1/1/98 -

6/30/05 and 1/04 - 6/05) but not with respect to the second period (10/01 - 8/05). 

E.g., Complaint at 6:22; Motion at 3:9-10. Why is this?

8. Plaintiffs have presented the assessed liquidated damages and interest

in a lump sum. Plaintiffs must identify what portion of the amount sought is

attributable to liquidated damages and what portion is attributable to interest.

9. Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages. Do all liquidated damages

plaintiffs seek pertain to contributions that were delinquent and unpaid as of

October 18, 2005? If not, plaintiffs must identify clearly the portion of the amount

sought as “liquidated damages” that is attributable to contributions that were both

delinquent and unpaid as of October 18, 2005.

10. What is the total amount plaintiffs seek for attorneys’ fees? In their

Motion plaintiffs state that they seek “fees in the amount of $675.00, . . . and

anticipate having to spend another $337.50.” Motion at 6. However, the Harland

Declaration indicates that plaintiffs have already incurred charges of $675.00 and

$337.50 and that they anticipate incurring an additional $225.00.

11. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of fees at the rate of $225.00 per hour

but have not submitted evidence indicating who actually performed the work

represented in the table in paragraph 4 of the Harland Declaration. Plaintiff also

must set forth the experience and qualifications of the attorney who performed the

work to justify the requested rate.

12. While the Court applauds plaintiffs’ efforts to minimize attorneys’

fees, the Court admonishes plaintiffs’ counsel to take greater care to provide clear

and accurate papers to the Court in the future.

By July 12, 2006, DEFENDANTS MUST respond to any matters in

plaintiffs’ June 28th submission and also may respond to any matters in plaintiffs’

original Motion and supporting papers.

Case 3:05-cv-04209-WHA Document 27 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 5
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

On July 26, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., the Court will conduct a hearing in

connection with plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. 

The Court ORDERS plaintiffs to serve a copy of this Order on

defendants immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2006

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: 

Plaintiffs with direction to serve defendants,

wdb, stats

Case 3:05-cv-04209-WHA Document 27 Filed 06/14/06 Page 5 of 5