UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

BRICKLAYERS & TROWEL TRADES 

INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND et al.,

 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOANN BARRON d/b/a BARRON TILE COMPANY,

 

Defendant. 

 

Case No. 1:18-cv-0165-CRC 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiffs in this ERISA action—multiemployer employee benefit plans—seek to recover 

unpaid contributions and associated damages from an Ohio-based tile company. Despite having 

been properly served, the company has not responded to the complaint, the Clerk’s entry of 

default, or the Court’s order to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it. 

Plaintiffs now request a default judgment, monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees, as well as an 

injunction requiring the company to submit to a payroll audit and make the required plan 

contributions going forward. Because Plaintiffs have adequately established that the Defendant 

is liable and that they are entitled to all of the requested relief, the Court will grant their motion 

and enter judgment against the company. 

I. Background 

Plaintiffs—the Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund (“IPF”) and the 

International Masonry Institute (“IMI”)—are “employee benefit plans” and “multiemployer 

plans” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1002 et seq. 

(“ERISA”). The plans are funded by contributions made by employers who are signatories to 

collective bargaining agreements. Ohio-based Defendant Joann Barron is an individual doing 
2 

business under the trade name “Barron Tile Company” (“Barron”) and is one such employer. It 

is required under its collection bargaining agreements and the plans’ written procedures 

governing the collection of employer contributions (“Collection Procedures”) to submit monthly 

reports and payments to the plans based on the number of hours worked by its employees in 

covered job positions. David F. Stupar Supp. Pls.’ Mot. Default J. (“Stupar Decl.”) ¶ 7. If 

Barron fails to make the required contributions, Plaintiffs are entitled to file suit to recover the 

unpaid contributions; interest on the unpaid contributions; either an additional assessment of 

interest on the unpaid contributions or liquidated damages provided for under the plan not in 

excess of 20 percent, whichever is higher; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and other legal or 

equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). 

Plaintiffs allege that Barron failed to “report and pay all amounts owing to [them] as 

required” by the applicable collective bargaining agreements and the plans’ Collection 

Procedures. Compl. ¶ 10. Barron was properly served on January 31, 2018. Pls.’ Aff. Service. 

It did not respond to the complaint, however, and the Clerk of the Court entered default on 

February 26, 2018. Entry of Default. Plaintiffs now petition the Court to enter a default 

judgment, seeking monetary judgement against Barron in the amount of $8,794.44, which 

includes delinquent contributions, interest on delinquent payments, liquidated damages, process 

server costs, filing fees, and attorneys’ fees. Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 9-13, 15-18. 

Section 502(e)(2) of ERISA provides for federal jurisdiction “in the district where the 

plan is administered.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). According to the complaint, both the IPF and the 

IMI are administered in the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2. The Court therefore has 

jurisdiction over the case. Plaintiffs filed the complaint within ERISA’s three-year statute-oflimitations period. See 29 U.S.C. § 1113. 
3 

II. Standard of Review 

The standard for default judgment is a two-step procedure. See, e.g., Boland v. Cacper 

Constr. Corp., 130 F. Supp. 3d 379, 382 (D.D.C. 2015). First, the plaintiff requests that the 

Clerk of the Court enter default against a party who has “failed to plead or otherwise defend.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, the plaintiff must move for entry of default judgment. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55(b). Default judgment is available when “the adversary process has been halted 

because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Boland v. Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc., 763 F. 

Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 2011) (internal citation omitted). “Default establishes a defaulting 

party’s liability for the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint.” Id. After establishing 

liability, the court must make an independent evaluation of the damages to be awarded and has 

“considerable latitude in determining the amount of damages.” Id. The court may hold a hearing 

or rely on “detailed affidavits or documentary evidence” submitted by plaintiffs in support of 

their claims. Boland v. Providence Constr. Corp., 304 F.R.D. 31, 36 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting 

Fanning v. Permanent Sol. Indus., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2009)). 

III. Analysis 

The Court must determine whether entry of default judgment is appropriate and, if Barron 

is liable, whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the manner and amount of relief they request. The 

Court concludes that the company breached its duties under ERISA and the Collection 

Procedures and that Plaintiffs are entitled to both the monetary and injunctive relief requested. 

A. Liability 

Plaintiffs filed suit in January 2018 to recover the damages prescribed by ERISA and the 

Collection Procedures. Compl. ¶ 1. Barron was served with the summons and complaint on 
4 

January 31, 2018. Pls.’ Mot. Default J. 1. The Clerk of the Court declared it to be in default on 

February 26, 2018. Entry of Default. On June 12, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show 

Cause why judgment should not be entered for Plaintiffs and set June 28, 2018 as the deadline 

for Barron to respond. Barron has not responded to either the complaint, the Clerk’s entry of 

default, or the Court’s Order to Show Cause. 

Because the Clerk of the Court has entered default and Barron has failed to respond, the 

Court accepts Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations and holds that it is liable and that entry of 

default judgment is appropriate. See Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d at 67. 

ERISA requires employers to make contributions to multiemployer plans “in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of” the relevant collective bargaining agreements. 29 U.S.C. § 1145. The 

IPF and IMI’s Collection Procedures specify that contributions are due “on or before the 15th 

day of the month” after the month in which work was performed. Stupar Decl. ¶ 5. They further 

provide that Barron will “submit monthly fringe benefit remittance reports and pay monthly 

fringe benefit contributions to the IPF and IMI for each hour of covered work performed by its 

employees within the work and geographic jurisdictions of the Agreement.” Stupar Decl. ¶ 7. 

By failing to submit required reports and pay the required contributions to IMI and IPF for 

covered work, Barron is liable for contractual and statutory damages. 

The Court may enter default judgment when a defendant makes no request “to set aside 

the default” and gives no indication of a “meritorious defense.” Fanning, 257 F.R.D. at 7. 

Barron, as noted above, has not responded to the complaint since being served in January 2018. 

The Court thus concludes that entry of default judgment against the Defendant is appropriate. 
5 

B. Damages 

The next issue before the Court is the amount of damages due: “[P]laintiffs must prove 

these damages to a reasonable certainty.” Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d at 68. 

Under ERISA, employers are required to pay any delinquent contributions, interest on unpaid 

contributions, liquidated damages at a rate of up to 20 percent or an additional interest 

assessment at the rate provided under the plan (whichever is higher), and legal fees. 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(g)(2). When a defendant has failed to respond, the Court must make an independent 

determination—by relying on affidavits, documentation, or an evidentiary hearing—of the sum 

to be awarded as damages. 

As support for their requested damages, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations from 

David F. Stupar, the Executive Director of the IPF and an authorized representative of the IMI, 

and Richard Hopp, Plaintiffs’ attorney of record and counsel at O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue 

LLP. Both attest to having personal knowledge of the facts regarding the assessment of 

contributions owed by Joann Barron, as well as the costs incurred in the current suit. Stupar 

Decl. ¶ 1; Hopp Decl. ¶ 1. Courts in this district, including this one, have accepted similar 

declarations in support of motions for default judgment regarding monetary damages owed to 

IPF and IMI. See Cacper Constr. Corp., 130 F. Supp. 3d at 383; Providence Constr., 304 F.R.D. 

at 37; Elite Terrazzo Flooring, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 69. Mr. Stupar’s declaration details the 

amounts owed for delinquent contributions, interest on late paid payments, liquidated damages, 

court fees, and the process server’s fee. Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 9-13, 15-18. 

1. Cover Group 2 

First, Mr. Stupar affirms that Barron reported but failed to pay all the contributions due to 

IPF and IMI for covered work performed in Local Union No. 8 – Ohio, cover group 2, in August, 
6 

October and December 2016, and February, March, April, May, June, and September 2017. 

Stupar Decl. ¶ 9. Barron owes the IPF contributions in the amount of $1,252.21, and the IMI 

contributions in the amount of $780.68, interest on the delinquent contributions due to the funds 

in the amount of $284.17, and liquidated damages in the amount of $406.64. Id. Barron also 

failed to timely pay contribution dues to the IPF and IMI for covered work performed by cover 

group 2 during the months of May, July, August, November and December 2016 and January, 

April and December 2017 and January 2018. Stupar Decl. ¶ 16. Barron owes liquidated 

damages in the amount of $933.60 to the IPF and IMI. Id. 

Second, Barron failed to report and pay all the contributions to the IPF and IMI for 

covered work performed in Local Union No. 8 – Ohio, cover group 2, in July and August 2017, 

and February and March 2018. Stupar Decl. ¶ 10. Without the reports, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

judgment based on reasonable estimates of hours worked by employees in covered employment. 

See, e.g., Nat’l Shopmen Pension Fund v. Builders Metal Supply Inc., 304 F.R.D. 47, 50 (D.D.C. 

2014). Plaintiffs estimate that $245.98 is owed each month to the IPF (for a total of $983.92) 

and $148.98 is owed each month to the IMI (for a total of $595.92) based on the average hours 

reported by Barron. The interest on these delinquent contributions is $44.59 to the IPF and 

$27.01 to the IMI; liquidated damages are $147.60 to the IPF and $89.40 to the IMI. Stupar Decl. 

¶ 11-12. 

2. Cover Group 29 

First, during March and May 2017, Barron reported but failed to pay to the IMI all 

contributions owed for covered work performed in Local Union No. 8 – Ohio, cover group 29. 

Stupar Decl. ¶ 13. Barron owes the IMI contributions in the amount of $7.54, interest on the 
7 

delinquent contributions in the amount of $1.05, and liquidated damages in the amount of $1.51. 

Id. 

Second, Barron failed to report and pay all contributions to the IPF and IMI for covered 

work performed in Local Union No. 8 – Ohio, cover group 29, in December 2016 and June, 

August, September, October, November and December 2017, and January, February and March 

2018. Stupar Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiffs estimate that $6.82 is owed each month for December 2016 

and $7.05 per month for June, August, September, October, November and December 2017, and 

January, February and March 2018 to the IMI (for a total of $70.27) based on the average 

monthly hours reported by Barron. Stupar Decl. ¶ 15. The interest on these delinquent payments 

is $4.18 to the IMI; liquidated damages are $12.65 to the IMI. Id. 

3. Court Fees 

Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover court fees under ERISA Section 

502(g)(2)(D). Here, Plaintiffs incurred a $400 court filing fee and a $185 process server fee. 

Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 17-18. 

The costs detailed above total $6,227.94. 

C. Attorneys’ Fees 

Aside from contractual damages, ERISA also requires defendants to pay plaintiffs’ 

reasonable attorney’s fees. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue charged 

Plaintiffs $295 an hour for 8.7 hours of work, totaling $2,566.50 in attorney’s fees for this case. 

Hopp Decl. ¶ 2, 4. In support of the requested attorney’s fees, Mr. Hopp’s declaration details the 

services provided to Plaintiffs. He attests that he has over 27 years of experience practicing 

exclusively in the field of labor and employee benefits. Id. ¶ 1. He also notes that the firm has 
8 

charged reduced hourly rates in this case that fall “substantially below” the rate in the current 

Laffey matrix. Id. ¶ 4. 

Mr. Hopp’s declaration outlines the individual tasks he performed, from preparing the 

complaint to drafting the motion for default judgment. Hopp Decl. Ex. 1. Because this 

declaration constitutes the type of “detailed . . . documentary evidence” on which the Court may 

rely, see Fanning, 257 F.R.D. at 7, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have justified the hours 

expended in this case. 

The Court likewise finds the requested rates to be reasonable. Mr. Hopp states that the 

negotiated fee of $295 an hour is “below the usual and customary fee charged for this type of 

work.” Hopp Decl. ¶ 4. Given that the firm charged below-market rates, the Court finds the 

request to be reasonable. See, e.g., Providence Constr. Corp., 304 F.R.D. at 37 (holding that 

“Funds are entitled to an attorneys-fee award calculated at market rates . . .”). The Court 

therefore determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to $2,566.50 in attorney’s fees. 

D. Equitable Relief 

The final issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to their requested 

equitable relief: an order directing Barron to submit an audit of its payroll records and an 

injunction requiring Barron to 1) submit all remittance reports accurately to Plaintiffs no later 

than the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which the Defendant’s employees 

performed their work, and 2) pay the Plaintiffs all contributions owed no later than the fifteenth 

day of the month following the month in which the Defendant’s employees performed their 

work. Pls.’ Mot. Default J. 9–10. 

ERISA permits courts to grant “other legal or equitable relief as [it] deems appropriate.” 

29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E). This may include “an injunction requiring a defendant to permit, and 
9 

cooperate with, an audit of its books and records.” Fanning v. AMF Mechanical Corporation, 

No. CV 17-1514 (TJK), 2018 WL 2389727, at *4 (D.D.C. May 24, 2018) (quoting Flynn v. 

Mastro Masonry Contractors, 237 F. Supp. 2d 66, 70 (D.D.C. 2002)). In similar situations with 

non-responsive defendants, courts have awarded injunctions requiring an employer to comply 

with its obligations under ERISA and collective bargaining agreements. See Boland v. Yoccabel 

Constr. Co., Inc., 293 F.R.D. 13, 20-21 (D.D.C. 2013); Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Industry 

Pension Fund v. ZAK Architectural Metal & Glass, LLC, 635 F. Supp. 2d 21, 26 (D.D.C. 2009); 

Carpenters Labor-Mgmt. Pension Fund v. Freeman-Carder, LLC, 498 F. Supp. 2d 237, 242 

(D.D.C. 2007). 

 Guided by these prior cases, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ petition for an injunction 

“because the defendant has demonstrated no willingness to comply with either its contractual or 

statutory obligations or to participate in the judicial process.” ZAK Architectural Metal & Glass, 

LLC, 635 F. Supp. 2d at 26 (internal citation omitted). The Court directs Barron to submit to an 

audit of its payroll records, file the reports required under the applicable collective bargaining 

agreement, and pay all contributions to IPF and IMI that may become due after the entry of 

judgment. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default 

Judgment. The Court will issue an order consistent with this opinion. 

 

 CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER 

 United States District Judge 

Date: June 29, 2018