UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

INTERNATIONAL UNION NATIONAL 

INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

M.R. OF AMBOY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-cv-1405 (DLF)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. Dkt. 9. For the reasons 

that follow, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in this case are the Service Employees International Union National 

Industry Pension Fund (Pension Fund), an employee pension benefit plan, and its trustees. 

Compl. ¶¶ 5–6. The Pension Fund is a multiemployer pension plan organized under the 

Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA). Id. ¶ 5; see 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2), (3), (37)(A). The 

defendants, M.R. of Amboy, LLC and H.W. of Amboy, LLC, are limited liability companies 

registered in the state of New Jersey. Compl. ¶¶ 8–9. The plaintiffs allege the companies are “in 

effect alter egos” that operate and do business under the name Amboy Care Center. Id. ¶¶ 10–

11. They also allege that the defendants are “employer[s] in an industry affecting commerce” as 

defined by ERISA. Id. ¶ 7; see 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), (11), (12).

The Service Employees International Union Local 1199 United Healthcare Workers East, 

NJ Region (the Union) is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain employees at 
2

Amboy Care Center. Id. ¶ 12. As relevant here, Amboy’s obligations are primarily governed by 

the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Amboy. See id. ¶ 13. Under the 

terms of the agreement, Amboy must contribute certain amounts to the Pension Fund based on 

the number of hours worked by its employees covered by the agreement. Id. ¶ 16. Amboy must 

also submit remittance reports to the Pension Fund detailing the names and number of 

compensable hours for each covered employee. Id. ¶ 18. Pursuant to both the agreement and the 

Pension Protection Act of 2006, see 29 U.S.C.§ 1085, Amboy is required to pay supplemental 

contributions if the Pension Fund is deemed to be in “critical status” to help correct the Pension 

Fund’s financial situation. Id. ¶ 21.

The collective bargaining agreement also binds Amboy to the Pension Fund’s Agreement 

and Declaration of Trust (Trust Agreement). Id. ¶ 17. Under the Trust Agreement, Amboy is 

liable for interest on delinquent contributions; liquidated damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Id. ¶ 19. In this action, the plaintiffs seek a total judgment of $23,623.80 based on allegations 

that the defendants failed to make required contributions and $6,240.43 in attorneys’ fees and 

costs. See Pls.’ Mot. at 1.

1

 The plaintiffs also seek equitable relief directing the defendants to 

 

1 The Complaint calculates the amount owed by the defendants in unpaid contributions, interest 

and liquidated damages for the period of April 2013 to January 2019. See Compl. ¶ 30. Since it 

appears the plaintiffs continued to accrue unpaid contributions, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Default 

Judgment seeks additional funds from April 2013 through July 2019, as well as interest 

calculated on this amount through October 1, 2019. See Pls.’ Mot. at 14; Toussaint Decl. ¶ 25. 

Even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) limits damages to the amount pleaded in the 

complaint, “a district court has discretion to award ERISA damages that accrue during the 

pendency of an action.” Boland v. Yoccabel Const. Co., 293 F.R.D. 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2013)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Finkel v. Triple A. Grp., Inc., 708 F. Supp. 2d 277, 

282 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Rule 54(c) is not violated, however, when a court awards damages that 

accrued during the pendency of the litigation if the complaint put defendant on notice that 

plaintiff might seek such damages.”). Since the complaint sought damages for all outstanding 

contributions due to the Pension Fund for the period of April 2013 “through the present,” Compl. 

at 10, the defendants were aware that the plaintiff sought an award beyond that calculated in the 

complaint. See Boland, 293 F.R.D. at 19.
3

submit missing remittance reports from August to September 2019 and to repay the 

corresponding contributions, interest and liquidated damages for these months. See Pls.’ Mot. at 

14–15.

The plaintiffs filed this action on May 15, 2019. Dkt. 1. The defendants were duly 

served with the complaint and summons on May 20, 2019. Aff. of Service, Dkt. 5. Because the 

defendants did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time period allotted 

by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs requested an entry of default. 

Dkt. 6. The Clerk of Court entered default on June 13, 2019. Dkt. 7; Dkt. 8. On October 8, 

2019, the plaintiffs moved this Court to enter a default judgment against the defendants under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empower a federal district court to enter a default 

judgment against a defendant who fails to defend its case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); Keegel v. 

Key W. & Caribbean Trading Co., 627 F.2d 372, 375 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1980). While federal policy 

generally favors resolving disputes on their merits, default judgments are appropriate “when the 

adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Mwani v. bin 

Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process. First, the plaintiff must request that 

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

R. Civ. P. 55(a). The Clerk’s default entry establishes the defaulting defendant’s liability for the 

well-pleaded allegations of the complaint. See Boland v. Providence Constr. Corp., 304 F.R.D. 

31, 35 (D.D.C. 2014). Second, if the plaintiff’s claim is not for a “sum certain,” the plaintiff 

must apply to the court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). At that point, the plaintiff 
4

“must prove his entitlement to the relief requested using detailed affidavits or documentary 

evidence on which the court may rely.” Ventura v. L.A. Howard Constr. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 

99, 103 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 

When ruling on a motion for default judgment, a court “is required to make an 

independent determination of the sum to be awarded.” Fanning v. Permanent Sol. Indus., Inc., 

257 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In that inquiry, the court has 

“considerable latitude.” Ventura, 134 F. Supp. 3d at 103 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The court may conduct a hearing to determine damages, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), but the court is 

not required to do so “as long as it ensures that there is a basis for the damages specified in the 

default judgment,” Ventura, 134 F. Supp. 3d at 103 (internal quotation marks and alterations 

omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Due to the Clerk’s default entry in this case, the defendants are deemed liable for the 

well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, including the allegation that the company failed to 

make timely contributions to the benefit plans. Providence Constr., 304 F.R.D. at 35. With 

liability established, the Court must independently determine the amount owed by the 

defendants.

The defendants’ obligations are set forth in Amboy’s collective bargaining agreements 

with the Union. ERISA § 515 mandates that “[e]very employer who is obligated to make 

contributions to a multiemployer plan . . . [shall] make such contributions in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145.

The collective bargaining agreement requires that Amboy contribute $0.15 per hour to 

the Pension Fund for all hours worked by each of its non-probationary employees. Compl. ¶ 16. 
5

It also requires Amboy to submit remittance reports to the Pension Fund with its contribution 

amounts, the names of each covered employee, and the number of compensable hours for that 

month. Id. ¶ 18. If the Pension Fund entered “critical status” under the PPA, the agreement 

mandates that Amboy pay supplemental contributions according to a “Preferred Schedule.” Id. 

¶¶ 6, 22. Under the “Preferred Schedule,” Amboy is required to pay supplemental contributions 

to the Pension Fund equal to 27.7% of all contributions otherwise due for October 2012 through 

September 2013; 37.6% of all contributions for October 2013 through September 2014; 48.3% of 

all contributions for October 2014 through September 2015; 59.8% of all contributions for 

October 2015 through September 2016; 72.1% of all contributions for October 2016 through 

September 2017; 85.5% of all contributions for October 2017 through September 2018; 99.9% of 

all contributions for October 2018 through September 2019; and 115.4% of all contributions 

effective October 1, 2019. Id. The SEIU Pension Fund was deemed to be in “critical status” 

during the relevant period, so Amboy owes supplemental contributions in addition to its standard 

contributions. See id. ¶ 20; id. Ex. 6, Dkt. 1-8. 

In the collective bargaining agreement, Amboy also agreed to be bound by the Trust 

Agreement. Id. ¶ 17. The Trust Agreement—which outlines the enforcement and collection 

policy for delinquent contributions—permits the trustees to collect interest equal to 10% of 

unpaid contributions per year; liquidated damages equal to the greater of the interest due or 20% 

of unpaid contributions; and the Pension Fund’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

If an employer like Amboy does not comply with such agreements, Section 502 of 

ERISA directs courts to award the amounts owed. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) (stating that, if 

judgment is entered in favor of a benefit plan, the court shall award unpaid contributions, interest 

at the rate set by the plan, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs).
6

According to the plaintiffs, Amboy disregarded its obligations from April 2013 through 

January 2019, and continuing to the present. See Compl. ¶ 29; Pls.’ Mot. at 14. The plaintiffs 

now seek to recover the amounts owed. Id. The primary documents the plaintiffs have 

submitted in support of their motion for default judgment are (1) the declaration of Holdjiny 

Toussaint, the Pension Fund’s Assistant Contributions Compliance Manager, see Dkt. 10; (2) a 

spreadsheet detailing the amount of delinquent contributions owed by Amboy, see Toussaint 

Decl. Ex. B, Dkt. 10; (3) the declaration of Diana Bardes, counsel for the plaintiffs, see Dkt. 11; 

and (4) an itemized bill from Bardes, see Bardes Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. 11. The declarations set forth 

the plaintiffs’ calculations with specificity. Toussaint’s declaration details the contributions and 

interest owed by Amboy to the Pension Fund. Bardes’s declaration details the attorneys’ fees 

and costs associated with this action. In particular, the declarations and the entire record 

establish that Amboy owes the following amounts totaling $29,864.23:

• $13,852.98 to the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund for unpaid 

contributions from April 2013 through July 2019, Toussaint Decl. ¶ 25;

• $4,728.39 to the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund for interest on the 

unpaid contributions, id.;

• $5,042.43 to the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund for liquidated 

damages, id. Ex. B2;

• $6,240.43 to Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C. for attorneys’ 

fees and costs, Bardes Decl. ¶ 19.

 

2 Both the plaintiffs’ Motion and the Toussaint Declaration state that this figure is $5,042.80, but 

this appears to be a typo. See Pls.’ Mot. 7; Toussaint Decl. ¶ 25. The spreadsheet that adds up 

the total liquidated damages owed lists this figure as $5,042.43. See id. Ex. B.
7

Therefore, pursuant to the agreements between the parties and Section 502 of 

ERISA, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled to a total monetary judgment 

of $29,864.23.

The plaintiffs also seek equitable relief, namely, an order directing Amboy to submit 

reports and contributions for the months of August and September 2019. See Pls.’s Mot. at 14–

15. Section 502 authorizes a district court to award “such other legal or equitable relief as the 

court deems appropriate.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E). Equitable relief is often awarded when 

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

obligations or to participate in the judicial process.” Carpenters Labor-Mgmt. Pension Fund v. 

Freeman-Carder LLC, 498 F. Supp. 2d 237, 242 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Int’l Painters & Allied 

Trades Industry Pension Fund v. Newburgh, 468 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (D.D.C. 2007)).

As demonstrated throughout this action, Amboy appears unwilling to participate in the 

judicial process or comply with its contractual and statutory obligations. Amboy has disregarded 

its obligations to submit timely reports and pay monthly contributions to the Pension Fund. See

Compl. ¶¶ 30, 32; Pls.’ Mot. at 14–15. Also, Amboy’s refusal to submit complete contribution 

reports continues to make a precise accounting of the outstanding contributions and interests 

impossible. Id. Thus, pursuant to the Court’s discretionary authority under Section 502 of 

ERISA, the Court grants the equitable relief requested by the plaintiffs against Amboy. See 

Boland v. Yoccabel Const. Co., 293 F.R.D. 13, 20–21 (D.D.C. 2013) (granting the plaintiffs’

request that the “defendant be directed to comply with its obligations to submit all required 

reports and to make all contributions due” because the request reiterates the defendant’s existing 

contractual obligations and because the defendant persistently breached these obligations).

CONCLUSION
8

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. 

Dkt. 9. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

________________________

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH

United States District Judge

December 3, 2019