The Court has juri sdiction ove r this matter pur suant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) , and 1/ venue is properunder 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). The Courthas juris diction overdefendant pursu an t to 29 U. S. C. § 1 13 2(e )(2 ) an d F ed . R . C iv. P. 4(k)(1 )(C ). UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURT FO R T HE DI ST RI CT OF CO LU MB IA

____________________________________ ) JOHN FLYNN, et a l. , ) ) P l a i n t i f f s , )

) v. ) C ivi l A cti on No . 0 9-0 91 8 (E SH ) ) L O RI N G A N D S O N M A S O N R Y ) RE S T O R

A T I O N , I N C . , ) ) De fen d an t. )

______ ______ ___ ___ ______ ______ _____ _ ) ME MOR

AN DU M OP IN ION Before the Court is pl aintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment. This case i s an action for legal and equi table re lief under the Employee Retire ment Incom e Security Actof 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended by the Multi employer Pension Plan Amendm ents Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1145. Defendant was served with t he complaint on June 5, 2009, but has fail ed to answer or oth erw ise de fe nd

thi s ac tio n. Th e C ler

k o f C ourt e nte red

de fa ult on Ju ly 3 1, 20 09 . P urs uant t o the Court’s J uly 31, 2009 Order dir ecting pla intiffs to move for entry of judgm ent, plaint iffs have
m ov ed fo r entryof

de fa ult jud gm ent pu

rsu ant to Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 55 (b) (2)
. 1/ The determination of whether defaultjudgment is appropriat e is comm itted t o the discret ion of the tria l court. Ja cks on v. Be ech , 6 36 F. 2d 83 1, 83 6 (D .C . C ir. 19 80 ). F or d ef au lt jud gm en t, d ef

en dant m us t be co ns ide red

a “t ota llyunres po ns ive ” p arty and its de fa ult pla inl y willful, reflect ed by its failur e to respond t o the summ ons and complaint, the entry of default, or the motion for default judgment. Gu tie rre z v. Be rg Co ntrac ting In c. , No . 9 9- 30 44 , 2 00 0 WL2

331721, *1 (D.D.C. March 20, 2000) (cit ing Jackson , 636 F.2d at 836). Given “the absence of any request t o set aside the default or s uggestion by the defendant that i t has a meritorious defense,” it is clear t hat the st andard for default judgment has been sa tisfied. Id. Although the default e stablis hes a defendant’s l iabili ty, the Court makes an independent determination of the sum to be awarded in the judgment unless the amount of dam ages is cer tain. Ad kin s v. Teseo , 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001). Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), the Co urt sh all aw ard

pla int if fs : (A ) th e unp aid

co ntr ibutio ns ; (B ) inter est on the un pa id contribut ions; (C) l iquidated da mages in an am ount equal to t he greaterof (i) inter est on the
un pa id c ontri butio ns , o r (i i) 2 0 p erc ent (o r su chhig he r pe rce nta ge as m aybe pe rm itt ed un de r Federal or St ate law) of the amount determined by the cour t under subpar agraph (A); ( D)
rea so na ble att orn ey ’s f

ees an d c os ts o f t

he act ion , to be pa id b y th e d ef en dant; an d (E ) su choth er leg al o r eq

uit ab le r eli ef

as t he co urt de em s ap pro pri ate . T he Co urt m ayrel y o n d eta ile d a ff

idavit s or d oc um entar

y e vid en ce t o d ete rm ine the ap pro pri ate sum fo r de fa ult jud gm ent. Fl

yn n v . Mas tro Mas on ry C

on tra cto rs , 237 F. Supp. 2d 66, 69 (D.D.C. 2002). Plaintiffs have filed t he declara tions of David F. Stupar, Execut ive Direct or of the Br ick lay ers & T row el T rad es I nte rnatio na l P en sio n F un d (“ the Fund ”) a nd anautho riz ed represent ative to e ffect collecti ons on behalf of the International M asonry Inst itute ( “IMI”) , and Ira R. Mit zn er, Es q. , in

su pp ort of the m oti on f

or d ef au lt j ud gm ent. B ase d o n th e d ecl aratio ns , the Co urt fi nd s th at p lai nti ff

s h av e es tab lis he d d am ag es i n th e am ounts of $6 9, 44 3. 43 in u

np aid contribut ions to the Fund and I MI (a) for work per form ed but not repor ted by defendant duri ng the period J anuary 2005 through J anuary 2008 and (b) for work performed and reported by defendant during the period September 2005 through February 2008, pursuantto 29 U.S.C.3

§ 1132(g)(2)( A); $19,869.50 in inte rest on thos e unpaid contr ibutions, pur suant to 29 U.S.C. § 1 13 2(g )(2 )(B ); and

$1 9, 91 2. 83 fo r li qu idated dam ag es a sse sse d o n unp aid co ntr ibutio ns , pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)( 2)(C). In addi tion, plai ntiffs are entit led to att orney’s fees in t he amount of $3,007.00 and costs in the amount of $1,416.24, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)( D). Th ere fo re, pursu ant to 29 U. S. C. § 1 13 2(g )(2 ), j ud gm ent w ill be enter ed fo r pl aintif

fs in the amount of $113,649.00. A separate Order of judgment will accompany this opinion.

/s/ ELLEN SEG AL HUV ELLE United States DistrictJudge Date: August 31, 2009