Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05477/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05477-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Trustees, The
Plaintiff
Richard Debruin
Defendant
Debruin Construction, Inc.
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBRUIN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05477-JCS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 49

I. INTRODUCTION

In this ERISA enforcement action, Plaintiffs bring a Motion for Default Judgment (the 

“Motion”) seeking entry of default judgment and an order awarding unpaid employee benefit 

contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys‟ fees and costs against DeBruin 

Construction, Inc. (“DeBruin”).

1

 Plaintiffs also request an order compelling DeBruin to submit to 

an audit of its records. The Motion came on for hearing on Friday, November 14, 2014 at 9:30 

a.m. Plaintiffs submitted supplemental materials in support of the Motion on January 9, 2015. 

Because DeBruin did not appear or consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case is ordered reassigned to a district judge with the 

following Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that the 

Motion be GRANTED.

 

1

Plaintiffs initially named Richard DeBruin as a Defendant in this action, along with DeBruin 

Construction, Inc. Although the Clerk entered default as to both Defendants, see Docket No. 45, 

Plaintiffs dismissed Richard DeBruin without prejudice prior to bringing their default judgment 

motion. See Docket No. 48. At the Motion hearing, Plaintiffs stipulated that they do not seek 

entry of default judgment as to Richard DeBruin but only as to the corporate defendant.

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 12
2

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

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The operative complaint in this action is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the 

FAC, the following trust funds (the “Trust Funds”) are named as Plaintiffs: (1) Laborers Health 

and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California; (2) Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for 

Northern California; (3) Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California; and (4) Laborers 

Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California. FAC at 2. The Trust Funds are 

employee benefit plans within the meaning of sections 3, 4, and 502 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002, 1003 and 1132. Id.

Plaintiffs allege that DeBruin is an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) and 

section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5), 1145. Id. On August 24, 2010, Richard DeBruin, 

on behalf of DeBruin, signed a Memorandum Agreement with the Northern California District 

Council of Laborers agreeing to be bound by the Laborers Master Agreement (hereinafter “Master 

Agreement”) and the Trust Agreements which govern each of the Trust Funds. Complaint at 2-3; 

Declaration of Michelle Lauziere in Support of Motion for Default Judgment (“Lauziere Decl”) ¶7 

& Ex. A (Trust Agreements), Ex. B (Memorandum Agreement), Ex. C (Laborers Master 

Agreement 2006-2010), Ex. D (Laborers Master Agreement 2010-2012), Ex. E (Master 

Agreement 2012-2015). Under the Master Agreement, employers are required to contribute and 

pay to the Trust Funds the hourly amounts required under the Trust Agreements for each hour paid 

for or worked by any of its employees who performed any covered work. FAC at 3; Lauziere 

Decl., Exs. C-E, Section 28A. Under the Trust Agreements, employers are required to report the 

contributions due and make payments no later than the 25th day of the following month; if 

payments are not made by that date they become delinquent. Lauziere Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. A (Trust 

Agreements), Article II, Sections 9-10. The Master Agreement also provides for liquidated 

damages and interest on delinquent contributions, stating in a “Side Letter” to the Master 

Agreement as follows:

All delinquent contributions shall bear simple interest at the rate of 

one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month until receipt of payment. 

Subject to account verification, liquidated damages shall be assessed 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 12
3

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

on delinquent contributions at a flat rate of one hundred and fifty 

dollars ($150.00) per month to reflect the internal administrative 

costs incurred by the trust administrators in monitoring and tracking 

such late contributions.

Lauziere Decl., Ex. D (Master Agreement), Side Letter.

The Master Agreement further provides for an audit of the books and records of signatory 

employers so that the Trust Funds may determine if the employer is making full and prompt 

payment of required contributions. Lauziere Decl. ¶ 11 & Exs. C-E (Master Agreement), Section 

7 (“Each Individual Employer, upon request of any Trust Fund specified in this Agreement, shall 

permit a Trust Fund Auditor to review any and all records relevant to the enforcement of the 

provisions of this Agreement pertaining to the Trust Funds”).

The Trust Agreements provide that “[i]f any Individual Employer defaults in the making of 

Contributions or payments and if the Board consults legal counsel, or files any suit or claim, there 

will be added to the obligation of the Individual Employer who is in default, reasonable attorney‟s 

fees, costs and all other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the suit or claim . . . .” 

Lauziere Decl., ¶ 13 & Ex. A (Trust Agreements), Article IV, Section 3.

According to Plaintiffs, Debruin never gave written notice of his intent to terminate the 

collective bargaining agreements and therefore, the obligations under those agreements continue in 

full force and effect. Lauziere Decl., ¶ 8.

In the FAC, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants failed to make contributions that were 

required under the Master Agreement and Trust Agreements “in the sum estimated to be at least 

$44,762.46” for the period April 2009 through June 2012.” Complaint at 4. In addition, Plaintiffs 

alleged that Defendants owed liquidated damages and interest for unpaid contribution “in the sum 

estimated to be at least $5,762.66” and additional liquidated damages and interest on contributions 

that were paid but paid late “in the sum estimated to be at least $4,876.56. Plaintiffs asserted the 

following claims: 1) breach of contract; 2) actual damages for breach of contract; 3) damages and 

equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty, which Plaintiffs alleged constituted a violation of 

ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145; 4) audit; and 5) alter ego liability as to Richard Debruin. In their 

prayer, Plaintiffs requested an order requiring Debruin and Richard Debruin to pay: 1) unpaid 

contributions in the amount of $44,762.46; 2) $10,639.22 in liquidated damages and interest on 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 12
4

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

late and unpaid contributions; and 3) attorneys‟ fees and costs. In addition, Plaintiffs asked the 

Court to issue an order enjoining Defendants: 1) to submit all reports and contributions that are 

presently due and owing; 2) to comply with its obligations to timely submit contribution reports 

and make contribution payments going forward; and 3) to submit to an audit. 

B. Service

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on October 24, 2012. They were unable to locate 

DeBruin‟s agent for service of process, Richard DeBruin, and the Court, after initially denying 

Plaintiffs‟ request, granted their request to serve the FAC and summons by publication on June 25, 

2014. See Docket No. 39. Plaintiffs published the summons in The Record, a newspaper of 

general publication printed and published daily in the City of Stockton, San Joaquin County. The 

summons appeared in The Record on July 14, 21, 28, and August 4, 2014. Proof of publication 

was filed with the Court on August 8, 2014, See Docket No. 40. Plaintiffs have not had any 

communication with Defendants in response to publication of the summons. Declaration of 

Concepción E. Lozano-Batista in Support of Motion for Default Judgment (“Lozano-Batista 

Decl.”) ¶ 3. Defendants did not file an answer or response to Plaintiffs‟ Complaint. Default was 

entered by the Clerk against Defendants on August 26, 2014. 

C. The Motion

In the Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter default judgment against DeBruin2and to 

award: 1) $44,762.46 in unpaid contributions for September 2011 to December 2011 and April 

2012; 2) $750 in liquidated damages and $22,953.16 in interest on unpaid contributions for the 

same period; and 3) $2,250 in liquidated damages and $2,626.56 in interest on payments that were 

made late for “numerous months between April 2009 and March 2012.” Motion at 8-9; Lauziere 

Decl., ¶¶ 14-15 & Exs. F, G.

3

Plaintiffs also request $14,461.25 in attorneys‟ fees and $2,066.35 

 

2

Plaintiffs dismissed Richard DeBruin without prejudice on October 9, 2014. As noted above, 

Plaintiffs have stipulated that they seek entry of Default Judgment as to DeBruin only and not as 

to Richard DeBruin.

3

In response to the Court‟s request at the motion hearing, Plaintiffs provided a declaration 

explaining exactly how these amounts were obtained, addressing each specific month at issue and 

providing the underlying contribution reports for those months as well. See Supplemental 

Declaration of Michelle Lauziere in Support of Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Default Judgment (“Lauziere 

Supp. Decl.”). 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 12
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in costs incurred to date, as well as $1,380.00 in attorneys‟ fees that Plaintiffs anticipated would be 

incurred at the hearing and executing the judgment. Motion at 9-10; Lozano-Batista Decl., ¶¶ 15-

16. In addition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order that Debruin be required to submit to an audit and 

to retain jurisdiction over this action to ensure payment of any amounts due and owing. Motion at 

10. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiffs have applied for a default judgment in this action on the basis that Defendant 

failed to plead or otherwise defend or appear after valid service. Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 55(b)(2), the court may enter a default judgment once the Clerk, under Rule 55(a), has 

entered the party‟s default based upon a failure to plead or otherwise defend the action. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “A default judgment may be entered against an infant or incompetent person 

only if represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has 

appeared.” If the court is satisfied that jurisdiction is proper and that service of process upon the 

defendant was adequate, courts are instructed to consider several facts in determining whether to 

grant default judgment:

(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). In making its decision, the court takes 

all factual allegations in the complaint, except those relating to damages, as true. TeleVideo 

Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. 

Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). Where a court finds that default should be granted, it 

may award damages if the plaintiff satisfies its burden of proving the damages through evidence. 

See id.

Here, the record supports the conclusion Defendant is not exempt from default judgment 

on the basis that it is an infant, incompetent, soldier or sailor. Debruin is a corporation and 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 12
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

therefore not an infant, incompetent person, soldier or sailor. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. J.K. Publications, 

Inc., 2000 WL 35594144, at *1 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2000) (“Defendants are not corporations and 

are therefore not infants or incompetent persons”).

Further, Plaintiffs have effected adequate service. In particular, as stated in the Court‟s 

previous order, service by publication was warranted because Plaintiffs exercised reasonable 

diligence in attempting to serve Debruin. Docket No. 39. Further, Plaintiffs have submitted 

evidence that they published notice on July 14, 21, 28, and August 4, 2014 in The Record, which 

is a newspaper of general publication printed and published daily in the City of Stockton, San 

Joaquin County. See Docket No. 44-1. As discussed in the Court‟s previous order, DeBruin was 

an active corporation with an address in Stockton, California and Richard DeBruin was listed as 

an agent for service of process at a Stockton address. See Docket No. 39 at 3-4. Therefore, 

Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(b) and Cal. Gov‟t Code 

§ 6064, which govern service by publication.4

B. Remedy

1. Section 1132(g)

Once liability is established through a defendant‟s default, a plaintiff is required to 

establish that the requested relief is appropriate. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 

(9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). Under ERISA, an employee 

 

4

Section 415.50(b) provides as follows:

The court shall order the summons to be published in a named 

newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual 

notice to the party to be served. If the party to be served resides or is 

located out of this state, the court may also order the summons to be 

published in a named newspaper outside this state that is most likely 

to give actual notice to that party. The order shall direct that a copy 

of the summons, the complaint, and the order for publication be 

forthwith mailed to the party if his or her address is ascertained 

before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the 

summons. Except as otherwise provided by statute, the publication 

shall be made as provided by Section 6064 of the Government Code 

unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a longer 

period.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50(b). Section 6064 of the California Government Code requires that 

“[p]ublication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for four successive weeks.”

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 12
7

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

benefit plan that obtains judgment in its favor in an action for unpaid contributions under 29 

U.S.C. § 1145 is entitled to the following forms or relief:

(A) the unpaid contributions,

(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,

(C) an amount equal to the greater of –

(1) interest on the unpaid contributions, or

(2) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of 20 

percent . . . of the amount determined by the court under subparagraph (A), 

(D) reasonable attorney‟s fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the defendant, and 

(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). This section further provides that “[f]or purposes of this paragraph, 

interest on unpaid contributions shall be determined by using the rate provided under the plan, or,

if none, the rate prescribed under section 6621 of Title 26. Id.

2. Contributions

Plaintiffs must submit proof of their damages. TeleVideo, 826 F.2d at 917-18; Geddes, 59 

F.2d at 560. In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek $44,762.46 in unpaid contributions for September 2011 

to December 2011 and April 2012. Lauziere Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. F. In addition, in their 

supplemental materials, Plaintiffs have provided supporting documentation in the form of the 

contribution reports, as well as a detailed explanation by the Accounts Receivable Manager of the 

calculation of the outstanding contributions. See Lauziere Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-29. Therefore, it is 

recommended that this amount be awarded in full. 

3. Liquidated Damages

Plaintiffs seek a total of $3,000 in liquidated damages on both unpaid contributions and 

contributions for the months of April 2009 through March 2012 that were paid at the time the FAC 

was filed but had been paid late. See Lauziere Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.

Liquidated damages of up to 20 percent are permitted under 29 U.S .C. § 1132(g)(2) on 

contributions that are unpaid at the time an action is filed, even if the contribution is subsequently 

paid. See Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United Mech. Contractors, 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 7 of 12
8

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

Inc., 875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir. 1989). There is some disagreement among the courts of this 

district as to whether Idaho Plumbers also allows for the award of liquidated damages on late 

contributions that were paid before an action was filed so long as there were unpaid contributions 

for other months at the time the suit was initiated. See Trustees of Bricklayers Local No. 3 

Pension Trust v. Huddleston, 2013 WL 2181532, at *5 (N.D.Cal., 2013) (discussing split of 

authority). The undersigned agrees with the conclusion of Judge Corley, in Huddleston, that the 

approach that is most consistent with the language of § 1132(g) and the reasoning of Idaho 

Plumbers is the one that has found that liquidated damages on contributions paid before the action 

is initiated are not available under ERISA. See id. Nonetheless, the court in Idaho Plumbers

found that ERISA does not preempt the federal common law of liquidated damages where 29 

U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) does not apply. Further, this Court has found, under similar facts, that a 

provision providing for liquidated damages at a flat rate of $150 was enforceable as a matter of 

federal common law. See Bd. of Trustees v. KMA Concrete Construction Co., 2011 WL 7446345, 

at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2011). For the reasons stated in KMA, the Court finds that the 

liquidated damages provision in the Master Agreement in this case is enforceable.

The Court further finds, based on the detailed explanation of Plaintiffs‟ calculation of 

liquidated damages provided in their supplemental materials, that the amount requested by 

Plaintiffs is supported by the evidence Plaintiffs have provided in support of the Motion. See

Lauziere Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-29. Therefore, it is recommended that the liquidated damages 

requested by Plaintiffs be awarded in full. 

4. Interest

In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek interest on the unpaid contributions in the amount of: 1) 

$22,953.16 in interest on unpaid contributions for the months of September 2011 to December 

2011 and April 2012; and 2) $2,626.56 in interest on payments that were made late for months 

between April 2009 and March 2012. Lauziere Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), Plaintiffs are entitled to interest under ERISA for contributions 

that are unpaid at the time the action was filed, even if the contributions are later paid. See Idaho 

Plumbers, 875 F.2d at 215. In addition, interest on contributions that were paid at the time the 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 8 of 12
9

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

action was filed but were paid late may be available as a matter of contract. See Board of Trustees 

of Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern Cal. v. Shade Const. and Engineering, 

2007 WL 3071003, at *7 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 19, 2007) (citing Idaho Plumbers, 875 F.2d at 217). In

Shade Construction, the court found that a provision in the master agreement setting interest on 

late contributions at a rate of 1.5% per month was enforceable. 

Plaintiffs have provided a detailed explanation of their calculation of interest on the 

delinquent and unpaid contributions. See Lauziere Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 4-29. Accordingly, the Court 

should award the full amount requested by Plaintiffs in interest, that is, $25,579.72.

5. Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys‟ fees under ERISA and the Trust Agreements. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1132(g)(2)(D); Lauziere Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. A (Trust Agreements), Art. IV, §3. Plaintiffs request 

$14,461.25 in attorneys‟ fees for a total of 56.75 hours of work performed as of October 9, 2014.

5

 

Motion at 10; Lozano-Batista Decl., ¶ 5. This amount includes the following fees: 1) $899.00 for 

work performed by Teresa Rojas Alou,6Senior Paralegal (6.2 hours at a rate of $145.00 per hour); 

2) $5,945.00 for work performed by Daniel S. Brome, Associate (20.5 hours at a rate of $290.00 

per hour); 3) $1,087.50 for work performed by Judy Castillo, Senior Paralegal (7.5 hours at a rate 

of $145.00 per hour); 4) $276.00 for work performed by Barry E. Hinkle, Shareholder (.8 hours at 

a rate of $345.00 per hour); 5) $326.25 for work performed by Eleanor Natwick, Paralegal (2.25 

hours at a rate of $145.00 per hour); 6) $3,881.25 for work performed by Conchita LozanoBatista, Shareholder (11.25 hours at a rate of $345.00 per hour); 7) $603.75 for work performed 

by Roberta Perkins, ( 1.75 hours at $345.00 per hour); 8) $862.50 for work performed by 

Stephanie Marn, Associate (2.5 hours at $345.00 per hour); 9) $580 for work performed by 

Aaron Nathan, Senior Paralegal . Id. 

 

5

Plaintiffs also stated that they anticipated that they would incur a total of $1,380 in attorneys‟ 

fees in connection with the default judgment motion. They did not, however, provide any time 

sheets or declarations documenting this time, either before or after the motion hearing. Therefore, 

it is recommended that Plaintiffs‟ request for these additional fees be DENIED.

6

Teresa Rojas Alou is also referred to as Teresa Oviedo in the Lozano-Batista Declaration. At 

oral argument, Plaintiffs‟ counsel explained that Ms. Oviedo has changed her name and that both 

refer to the same individual.

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 9 of 12
10

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

The Court finds the requested rates and amounts to be reasonable. Plaintiffs provided 

detailed time sheets showing the time and tasks performed by each attorney and paralegal for 

which it seeks fees. Lozano-Batista Decl., Exs. A-B. Plaintiffs have also described in a 

declaration the level of experience for each attorney and paralegal. See Lozano-Batista Decl. ¶¶ 6 

- 14. Courts in this district, in similar cases, have awarded the same hourly rates requested in this 

case for work performed by attorneys Brome and Hinkle, and for work performed by paralegals 

Natwick, Castillo and Alou. See Bd. of Trustees v. C & L Coatings, No. 12-1368 (MEJ), 2012 WL 

7748318, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL

1087849 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2013) (awarding $345 per hour to Mr. Barry Hinkle, $290 per hour 

to Mr. David Brome, and $145 per hour to paralegal Ms. Eleanor Natwick); Bd. of Trustees v. 

KMA Concrete Const. Co., No. 10-5831, 2011 WL 4031134 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011), report 

and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 4031100 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2011) (awarding $145 per 

hour to paralegals Ms. Eleanor Natwick and Ms. Judy Castillo); Bd. of Trustees v. LML 

Enterprises, Inc., Case No. C-13-3117 RS, Docket No. 30 (Report and Recommendation 

recommending that fees be awarded for work by Teresa Rojas Arou at rate of $145/hour) and 37 

(adopting Report and Recommendation). 

It is recommended that the Court award $14,461.25 in attorneys‟ fees.

6. Costs

Plaintiffs request costs in the amount of $2,066.35. Lozano-Batista Decl., ¶ 16 & Ex. B.

The costs listed in the Schedule of Costs provided by Plaintiffs fall into the following categories: 

1) filing fees ($525.00); 2) costs of service, including investigation costs, costs incurred in 

attempting to serve DeBruin and costs of service by publication ($1,195.80); 3) legal research 

($229.00); 5) attorney travel ($27.80); 6) copy costs and delivery service incurred in connection 

with providing chambers copies of filed documents ($88.7). Under Civil Local Rule 54-3, an 

award of costs may include the clerk‟s filing fee and fees for service of process “to the extent 

reasonably required and actually incurred.” In addition, the Trust Agreements provide for the 

recovery of all expenses incurred in collection. The Court concludes that the costs requested by 

Plaintiffs are reasonable and therefore recommends that they be awarded in full.

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 10 of 12
11

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

7. Audit

The Supreme Court has held that where a collective bargaining agreement gives the 

Trustees of an employee benefit plan the right to audit an employer‟s books and records, it will be 

enforced. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 472 U.S. 559, 569 

(1985). Here, the Master Agreement expressly provides that a signatory employer shall submit to 

an audit of its records upon request. Therefore, it is recommended that the Court issue an order 

compelling Defendant to submit to a full audit. The Court does not recommend, however, that

the injunction include an order that Defendant “pay all amounts found due and owing as a result of 

said audit of its books and records pursuant to the Trust Agreements,” as requested in Plaintiffs‟ 

proposed order. Judges in this district have likened provisions such as this to a “blank check” and 

have declined to award such relief. See, e.g., Bay Area Painters and Tapers v. Brown, 2007 WL 

1302982, at *3 (N.D.Cal., May 3, 2007) (Alsup, J.) (Finding that proposed injunction amounted to 

a “blank check” where Plaintiffs would “fill in the amount of that „check‟ when they later 

determine the contributions due” and declining to award requested relief); Board of Trustees in 

their capacities as Trustees of Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Geotech Const., Inc., 2008 

WL 3496474, at *2 (N.D.Cal., July 18, 2008) (Zimmerman, J.) (same). As Judge Alsup noted in 

Brown, “Plaintiffs may demand that defendant comply with [the provisions of the collective 

bargaining agreement] once they determine the amount of damages owed. If defendant fails to 

comply at that time, plaintiffs may seek to enforce the determined amount at that time.” 2007 WL 

1302982, at *5.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the Motion be GRANTED. The Court 

should award the following relief: 1) unpaid contributions in the amount of $44,762.46; 2) 

liquidated damages in the amount of $3,000.00; 3) interest in the amount of $25,579.72; 4) 

attorneys‟ fees in the amount of $14,461.25; and 5) costs in the amount of $2,066.35. In addition, 

it is recommended that the Court GRANT Plaintiffs‟ request for injunctive relief as set forth in 

their proposed order, Docket No. 53, at 2:26 -3:6. It is further recommended, however, that the 

Court omit from its Order the language contained in Paragraph 4 of the Proposed Order, requiring 

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 11 of 12
12

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

Defendant to “pay all amounts found due and owing as a result of said audit of its books and 

records pursuant to the Trust Agreements.” Finally, it is recommended that the Court retain 

jurisdiction over this action so that Plaintiffs may seek amendment of the judgment, if appropriate, 

following an audit.

Dated: January 14, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05477-TEH Document 65 Filed 01/14/15 Page 12 of 12