MI CHAEL R. FANN I

NG, as Chief Ex ecutive O ffice r of the Ce ntral Pension Fund of the International Union of Oper ating Eng ineer s and ParticipatingEmploy ers, et al ., Plaintiffs,
v. BI G WARRI OR CORP ORATI ON, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 09-780 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (Oc tober 5, 2009) Plaintiffs Michael R. Fa

nning, in his off

icial ca pacity as Chief Executive Of

fice r of the Central Pension Fund of

the International Union of Oper atingEng ineer s and Participating Employ ers, the B oard of

Trustee s of the International Union of Oper atingEng ineer s and Pipe L ine Employ ers He alth and Welfar e F und, and the B oard of Trustee s of the International Union of Ope ratingEng ineer s and Pipe L ine Contractor s Association National Pipe L ine Tra ining F und (c oll e c tiv e ly , “ Pla int if

fs ” or the “ F un ds ” ), fi le d a

Com pla int in t his c a se a g a ins t D e fe nd ant B ig W ar ri o r C o rp o ra t i o n(“ De fe n d an t ” o r t h e “ C o rp o ra t i o n ”) , o nAp ri l 2 9 , 2 0 0 9
. P l ai n t i ff s al l ege that the Corporation failed to submit reports or pay to Plainti ffs the pr oper a

mount of contributions owed under the re levant collec tive barg ainingag ree ments. See Compl., Docket No. [1] . Although pr operly and timely

serve d with the Complaint and Sum mons, Defe ndant failed to re spond to the Complaint, and the Clerk of the Court, upon motion by Plaintiffs, entere d defa ult ag ainst the Corporation on June 30, 2009. See Clerk’s Entry of De fault, Doc ket No. [6]
.2

Presently befor e the Court is the F unds’ [7] Motion for Def ault J udg ment on Count Three of the Complaint. Having thoroughly considere d the Complaint, the Funds’ submissions and
atta c hme nts the re to, a

pp lic a ble c a se law, statut or

y a uth or ity , a

nd the re c or d o f t

he c a se a s a whole, the Court shall GRANT the Funds’ [7] Mot ion for De fault Judgment on Count Three of the Complaint, for the re asons stated be low. I. BACKG ROUND The F unds filed the Complaint in the above-c aptioned matter on April 29, 2009. See Com pl. As se t f

or th i n th e Com

pla int , th e F un ds a sse rt

that th e De fe nd ant i s b ound thr ou g h it s collective ba

rg ainingag ree ment with the International Union of Oper atingEng ineer s and re lated ag ree ments to pay

the Funds c erta in sums of money for e ach hour

worke d by

employ ees of

the Corporation per formingwork c overe d by the re levant agree ments and to supply rec ords
nece ssary to permit the Funds to dete rmine if the Corpor ation is making the require d pay ments. Id. ¶¶ 8- 9, 15. Be g inning on January 1, 2009 throug h the pre sent, the F unds alleg e that the Corporation has e mploy ed employ ees pe rfor ming wor k under the collective ba

rg aining
a g re e me nt, but ha s f

a ile d to su

bmi t r e po rt s o r p ay

the pr op e r a

mou nt o f c on tr ibutio ns ow e d, a s is require d under the collective ba rg ainingag ree ment and re lated agree ments. Id. ¶¶ 10- 11. Pursuant to the terms of those a g ree ments, the Funds a ssert that they are there fore entitled to: a monetary

awa rd in the amount of the unpa id contributions, liqui dated damag es, intere st on the unpaid contr ibutions, as well as costs, audit expenses and attorney s’ fe es (Count I ); a c ourt order enjoining the Corporation fr om violating its collective ba rg ainingag ree ments, as alleg ed here in, and re quiring the Corporation to im mediately submit t he unpaid c ontributions, li quidated dama g e s and

int e re ste d o we d ( Count I I ); and an a ud it o f t he Cor po ra tio n’ s r e c or ds to p e rm it3

Plaintiffs to determine the a mounts owed. Id. ¶¶ 16- 31. Plaintiffs, in their instant mot ion, have moved for de fault judg ment with respec t to CountI I Ionly
. SeePl.’s Mot. for Def. J. at 1-2. The Funds re prese nt that once they are able to conduc t an audit of the Corpor ation’s re cords a nd calc ulate the a

mount of damag es owe d, they intend to file a re quest for a final De fault Judgment as to the exact sum owed. See id. at 2. The Corporation was serve d with the Complaint and Sum mons on May 15, 2009, and wa s there fore require d to respond by J une 4, 2009. See Re tu

r no f Se r v ic e /A f f id av it , D o c k e t N o . [4 ]; see also Affida

vit in S upport of De fault, Doc ket No. [5] . The Corporation failed to file an
answe r or other

wise re spond to the Funds’ Complaint, and the F unds subsequently moved for entry of def ault. See Pls.’ Aff. in Support of Def ault, Docke t No. [5] . On J une 30, 2009, the Clerk of the Court e ntere d defa ult ag ainst the Corporation. See Clerk’s Entry of De fault, Doc ket No. [6] . The F unds subsequently filed the instant Motion for De fault Judgment. See Pl. ’s Mo t. for De fault J., Docket No. [7] . As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, the De fenda nt Corporation has not ente red a n appea ranc e nor f

iled any pleading s in this case. II. LEGAL STANDARD AN D D ISC USS ION Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 55(a ) provides that the cler k of the c ourt must enter a party ’s def

ault “[w]hen a party

ag ainst whom a judg ment for a ffirmative relief is sought has failed to plea d or otherw ise defe nd, and that fa ilure is shown by aff idavit or otherwise .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 55(a) . After

a def ault has bee n enter ed by

the cler k of the c ourt, a c ourt may enter a defa ult judgment pursua

nt to Rul e 55(b) . F ED . R. C IV . P. 55(b). “ The de termination of whe ther defa ult judgment is appropr iate is committed to the discretion of the tr ial court.” In t’ l P ain te rs
an d A lli e d Trad

es I nd us . P e ns ion Fu nd

v . A ux ie r D ry wal l, L

LC, 53 1 F . Su

pp . 2 d 5 6, 57 (D .D .C.4

2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Jack

son v. Bee ch , 636 F.2d 831, 836 ( D.C. Cir. 1980)). Where, a s here , there is a complete “ absenc e of a ny reque st to set aside the def ault or sug g estion by

the def endant that it has a

meritorious defe nse, it is clear that the standar d for defa ult judgment has be en satisfied.” Au x ie r D ry wal l, L

LC, 531 F. Supp. 2d at 57 (inter nal quotation marks omitted). The Clerk of the Court enter ed the Corpor ation’s def ault, and the fac tual alleg ations in the Complaint are there fore taken a s true. See R.W . Armine Dry wall Co., Inc. , 2 39 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 30 . T he Court

fi nd s th at th e F un ds ’ C omp la int su ff ic ie ntl y a lle g e s f a c ts to support its claims. The Funds ar e thus entitled to defa ult judgment as to the Corpor ation’s lia bil ity fo r i ts f a ilure to t ime ly

pa y c on tr ibutio ns to t

he F un ds and

to s up ply re c or ds ne c e ssa

ry to permit the F unds to determine if the Corporation is makingthe re quired pa y ments, as re quired
un de r t he te rm s o f t

he Cor po ratio n’ s c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt a

nd re late d a g re e me nts . Although the defa

ult establishes a def

endant’ s liabilit y , the Court makes a n independe nt deter mination of the sum to be awa rded in the judg ment unless the amount of damag es is cer tain. Adins v. Teseo , 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D .C. 2001)). The spe cific a mount of damag es owe d by the Def endant Corpor ation to the Funds, howe ver, c annot be de termined until after an audit of the Corporation’s pay

roll books and re cords is conduc ted. Acc ording ly , Plaintiffs have moved a t thi s ti me on ly

a s to Count I I Iof

the ir Com pla int , whic h s e e ks an o rd e r r e qu ir ingthe De fe nd ant t o pr ov ide to P la int if

fs a ll c on tr ibutio n r e po rt s a s w e ll a s a ll p e rt ine nt e mpl oy me nt a nd pa y ro ll
rec ords so that Plaintiffs may deter mine the amount of damag es owe d. SeeCompl. ¶¶ 28-31. Pursuant to the terms of the Corpor ation’s collec tive barg ainingag ree ment and re lated ag ree ments, the Corporation is requir ed to submit contributions and reportingforms to the F unds
eac h month. SeeCom

pl. ¶ 2 3; P ls. ’ M ot. fo r D e fa ult J., A tt. 1 ( De c laratio n o f M ic ha e l R.5

Fa nning) (her einaf

ter “ Fa nning D ecl.” ), Exs. B (the National Pipe L ine Ag ree ment), § XV.B .5,
and C ( the Cor

po ratio n’ s “ Pr e -Job Con fe re nc e Re po rt s” ). Th e Cor po ra tio n is a lso ob lig ate d to produce “the na

mes of all [of its] Employ ees, the ir Social Security numbers, ea ch Employ ee’ s Ea rn ing s r e c or ds , th e numbe rs of ho ur s w or

ke d b y e a c h E mpl oye e and

a ll F e de ra l and

State pa y ro ll t a x re tur

ns , a nd su c h o the r i nf

or matio n a s th e Tr

us te e s ma y re a so na bly re qu ir e in
connec tion with the administ ration of the T rust Fund.” Fa nning D ecl., Ex. D (Restated Ag ree ment and De clar ation of Trust of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Oper atingEng ineer s and ParticipatingEmploy ers) , § 4.4. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown they are entitled to audit the Def endant Corporation’s re cords, a s provided for under the rele vant collec tive barg ainingag ree ment and related agree ments. The Court shall there fore enter defa ult judgment ag ainst the Corporation as to C ou nt I I Iof Pla int if fs ’ C omp la int . T he De fe nd ant C or po ra tio n is he re by

or de re d to pr ov ide to Plaintiffs, within t wenty

(20) da y s of servic e of this Court’s Orde r upon it, all contribution
re p o rt s re qu i re d

b y th e N at i o n al P i p e Lin e A gre em en tfo r w o rkp er fo rm edi nJ an u ary th ro u gh J une 2009 and a ll pertinent employ ment and pay

roll rec ords re quired for

the Plaintiffs to verify the ac cura cy

of the De fenda

nt’s contribution repor

ts for work pe rfor

med in J anuar

y throug h J une of 2009. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons set for

th above, the Court sha ll GRANT the Funds’ [7] Motion for Def ault J udg ment on Count Three of the Complaint. The Def endant Corpor ation is hereby
or de re d to pr ov ide to P la int if fs , w ith in t

we nty (2 0) da y s o f s e rv ic e of

the Court ’s Or de r u

po n it , a ll c on tr ibutio n r e po rt s r e qu ir e d b y the Natio na l Pip e L ine Agre e me nt f or wo rk pe rf or me d in6

J anuar y throug h J une 2009 and a ll pertinent employ ment and pay

roll rec ords re quired for

the Pla int if fs to v e ri fy

the a c c ur a c y

of the De fe nd ant’ s c on tr ibutio n r e po rt s f or wo rk pe rf or me d in J anuar y throug h J une of 2009. An appropr iate orde r ac companies this memora ndum opinion. Date: Oc tober 5, 2009
/s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge