UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) Service Employees International Union ) National Industry Pens ion Fund , et al. ) ) Plaintiff s , ) ) v. ) C ase No. 16
- cv - 0 1375 (APM) ) Liberty House Nursing Home of ) Jersey City, Inc ., ) ) Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N
I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund (the “Pension Fund”) is a multiemployer pension plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq

. De fendant Liberty House Nursing Home of Jersey City, Inc., which formerly operated a nursing home in Jersey City, New Jersey, is a participating employer in the Pension Fund . The Pension Fund and its Trustees (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action under ERISA , alleging that Defendant made deficient and late payments under the pension plan, underreported employees’ salaries in monthly reports used to calculate employer contributions , and neglected to make withdrawal liability payments , which are ass essed when an employer prematurely withdraws from a plan

. Plaintiffs sought deficient and late contributions, withdrawal liability, liquidated damages, surcharges owed under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109

– 280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006) , in terest, and attorney’s fees and costs.2 Although properly served, Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint, and the Clerk of the Court entered default on August 23, 2016. Plaintiff s then moved for default judgment , seeking the relief requested in the Complaint . For the reasons discussed below, the court grants Plaintiff s ’ Motion for Default Judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
1. Contractual History At all times relative to this action , Service Employees International Union Healthcare
1199 New Jersey (the “Union”) was the collective bargain ing representative for full

- time and part

- time caregiver and healthcare employees at Defendant’s nursing home in Jersey City, New Jersey. Compl. , ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], at 3

– 4

. In March 2008, the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement ( the “2008 Agreement ”) with Defendant and several other nursing homes that governed the period from March 13, 2008 , through February 28, 2013

. Id

. ; Compl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 1

- 3 [hereinafter 2008 Agree ment]; Pls.’ Mot. for Defau lt J., ECF No. 7 [hereinafter Pls.’ Mot.] , D ecl. of Kenneth J. Anderson, Jr., ECF No. 7

- 3 [hereinafter Anderson Decl.], ¶ 4

. In 2012, the Union reopened negotiations with the employers over t he terms of the agreement for its fin al year , which it was authorized to do under the agreement , 1 but after both sides failed to reach a resolution , the parties submitted the matt er to arbitration. Compl. , Ex. 2,
ECF No. 1

- 4 [hereinafter 2012 Agreement], at 2. 2 In November 2012, an arbitrat or who was authorized by the agreement to issue a final and binding resolution imposed a collective bargaining agreement on the parties, effect ive from March 1, 2012, through June 30, 2016 ( the
“2012 Agreement ”) . Anderson Decl. ¶ 4; 2008 Agreement art. 34 , § 1 ; 2012 Agreement at 13

.

1 Under Article 34 of the 2008 Agreement, “The Union shall have the right nin ety (90) days prior to February 28, 2012 to reopen and negotiate wages (minimum and across the board increases), hours and general terms and 2 Unless otherwise noted, pin citations are to the document’s original pagination.3 Under the 2008 Agreement , Defendant agreed to contribute 1.5 percent of each covered employee’s gross mo nthly wages to the Pension Fund starting in 2008. Compl. at 4 ; 2008 Agreement , art. 30, § 3 . Th at contribution amount sub sequently increased in 2010 and 2011 to
2.5 percent and 2.75 percent, respectively. 2008 A greement , art. 30, § 3

. The 2012 Agreement provide s that Defendant would make contributions at a rate of 2.75 percent of employees’ gross earnings for the dura tion of the contract. 2012 Agreement at 22. The 2008 an d 2012 Agreements state that participating employers are bound by the Pension Fund’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust (“ Trust Agreement ”) as well as its Statement of Policy for Collection of Delinquent C ontributions (“Collections Policy”)

. 2008 Agreement; 2012 Agreement; Compl., Ex. 3 , ECF No. 1

- 5 [hereinafter Trust Agreement] ; Compl., Ex. 4, ECF No

. 1

- 6 [hereinafter Collections Policy]

. 2. The Rehabilitation Plan As a result of investment losses in 2008, t he Pension Fund was deemed to be in “critical
status” eac h year from 2009 through 2016

. 3 Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 6

– 8; Anderson Decl., Ex. A,
ECF No. 7

- 3 , at 13

– 82 [hereinafter Annual Funding Notices], at 79. In response, t he Pension Fund’s trustees adopted a R ehabilitation Plan i n November 2009 , designed to improve the fund’s fiscal situation. Under the Rehabilitation Pla n, participating employers , such as Defendant, were required to pay surcharges and supplemental contributions under one of two schedules

— eith er a “Default” or “Preferred” Schedule

. Anderson Decl. ¶¶ 6

– 8; Annual Funding Notices at 79. The Pension Fund communicated these changes to participating employers each year from 2009 through 2016 , notifying them by letter of the Pension Fund’s critical status and the Rehabilitation Plan

. See Annual Funding Notices

. These letters also listed the applicable surcharges. Id.

3 Under federal pension law, a plan generally will be considered to be in “critical status” if, by certain statutorily defined measures, the plan’s funding is too low. S ee 26 U.S.C. § 432.4 Defendant , as part of the 2012 Agreement, agreed to pay supplemental contributions effective July 1, 2010, under the Preferred Sch edule . 2012 A greement at 19 ; Anderson Decl. ¶ 10.
3. The Pension Fund’s Assessment of Withdrawal Liability On June 30, 2015, the Pension Fund sent a notice and demand for payment to Defendant based on its determination that Defendant had completely withdraw n from the plan as of February 28, 2015 , thereby triggering withdrawal liability under 29 U.S.C. §§ 138 2 and 138 3(a)

. Anderson Decl., Ex. E, ECF No. 7

- 3 [hereinafter Withdrawal Liability Assessment]; Anderson Decl. ¶ 23. The Pension Fund assessed $844,7 89.39 in provisional withdrawal liab ility. See Withdrawal Liability Assessment

. On August 17, 2015, Defendant requested review of the Pension Fund’s determination under Section 4219(b)(2)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(2)(A) . Compl., Ex. 9 , ECF No. 1

- 11 [hereinafter Request for Review], at 1 ; Anderson Decl. ¶ 26

. Defendant argued that there was “no permanent cessation of [its] obligation to contribute” because its withdrawal from the plan fell under ERISA Section 4218(1)(A), which exempts from w ithdrawal liability employers who withdraw solely because of a change in business form that “ causes no interruption in employer contributions or obligations to contribute under the plan

. ” See 29 U.S.C. § 1398; Request for Review at 1

– 2

. T he Pension Fund responded to Defendant’s request for review and rejected its objection

. Compl. , Ex. 10 , ECF No. 1

- 12 [hereinafter Letter to Liberty House]

. On November 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed in this case a supplemental memorandum calculating Defendant’s final withd rawal liability to be $ 1,187,325.97

. See Pls.’ Supp. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 8 [hereinafter Pls.’ Supp. Mem.] ; Pls.’ Supp. Mem., Decl. of Kisha Smith, ECF No. 8

- 1 [hereinafter Smith Decl.], ¶¶ 2

– 3

.5 4. The Audit Pursuant to the Pensio n Fund’s Collections Policy, t he Pension Fund conducted an audit of Defendant for the calendar years 2012 and 2013 . The audit aimed to verify that the hours and salaries reported by Defendant to calculate monthly contributions were the same as those refl ected in Defendant’s payroll documents and federal tax filings

. See Pls.’ Mot., Decl. of Andre Joseph, ECF No. 7

- 4 [hereinafter Joseph Decl. ], ¶ 10. The audit revealed that Defendant underreported employee salaries in 2012 and 2013

. Id

. ¶¶ 10

– 12. In le tters dated November 20, 2015, and January 14, 2016, t he Pension Fund notified Defendant of the findings of the audit and Defendant’s obligation to pay the missing contributions

. Id. ¶ 13 ; Joseph Decl., Ex. A, ECF No.
7

- 4, at 9

– 10

. A ccording to Andre Jos eph, Payroll Review Manager for the Union, as of October 21, 2016, Defendant had “ faile d or refused to remit the amounts owed to the Pension Fund under the audit. ” Joseph Decl. ¶ 13.
A. Procedural Background On June 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint a lleging that Defendant breached the 2008 and 2012 Agreements and violated ERISA by failing to make timely and complete contributions to the plan between October 2012 and February 2015; underreporting employee salaries in 2012 and 2013 , and , thereby , underp aying contributions during that time period ; and defaulting on withdrawal liability payments after Defendant withdrew from the plan. See Compl. at 12

– 13

. Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including: (1) a declaration that Defendant defaulted on withdrawal liability payments to the Pension Fund; and (2) a judgment requiring Defendants to pay withdrawal liability, delinquent contributions, liquidated damages, surcharges owed under the Pension Protection Act , interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 14

– 15.6 Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint within 21 days , and the Clerk filed an entry of default on August 23, 2016. See Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 5. On October 21, 2016, Plaintiffs then filed the Motion for Default Judgment p resently before the court

. See Pls.’ Mot.
III. LEGAL STANDARD A party seeking a default judgment must undertake a two

- step process , as set forth in Rule 55 of the Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure. First, a plaintiff must ask the Clerk of the Court
to e nter a default against a party who has “failed to plead or otherwise defend” itself against the action

. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once a n entry of default is on the docket , the plaintiff must move for entry of a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). En tering a default judgment is not a task courts take lightly, or one to which the moving party is automatically entitled. See Carpenters Labor

- Mgmt. Pension Fund v. Freeman

- Carder LLC , 498 F. Supp. 2d 237, 240 (D.D.C. 2007)

. Instead, a “default judgment m ust normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. ” Jackson v. Beech , 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. Although a default j udgment estab lishes a defendant’ s liability, the Court must “make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded” pursuant to the judgment “unless the amount of damages is certain.” Bo land v. Yoccabel Const. Co. , 293 F.R.D. 13, 17 (D.D.C. 2013). T o determine the appropriate amount of damages, t he court may hold a hearing or it may “rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence.” Boland v. Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc. , 763 F. Supp. 2d 64, 68 (D.D.C. 2011) . A plaintiff “ must prove these damages to a rea sonable certainty.” Id.7 IV. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction As an initial matter, the court holds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. ERISA contains a special venue provision, Section 502(e)(2), which states that an ERISA action may be brought “ in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defen dan t resides or may be found. ” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). “ERISA’s venue provision has been interpreted to authorize nationwide service of process.” Mazzarino v. Pr udential Ins. Co. of Am ., 955 F. Supp. 2d 24, 28 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a statute allows for nationwide service of process, the defendant need not have minimum contacts with the forum stat e for personal jurisdiction over th e defendant to exist in that state

. See Teamsters Local 639 Emp’rs , Health Trust v. Hileman , 988 F. Supp. 2d 18, 25

– 26 (D.D.C. 2013). “ Under a nationwide service of process provision, minimum contacts with the United
Stat es suffice” to create personal ju risdiction. Mazzarino , 955 F. Supp. 2d at 28. As a company operating a nursing home in New Jersey, Compl. at 3 , Defendant quite obviously has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to give rise to personal jurisdiction in this court

. See Fly nn v. Ohio Bld g
. Restoration, Inc. , 260 F. Supp. 2d 156, 173 (D.D.C. 2003) (holding that ERISA’s nationwide service provision permits the court to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant “because it is a citizen of the United States”).
B. Whether Entry of Defaul t is Warranted In considering Plaintiffs’ Motion, t he court first must determine whether entry of a default judgment is warranted

. See Jackson , 636 F.2d at 836; Teamsters Local 639

– Emp’ rs Health Trust v. Boiler & Furnace Cleaners, Inc. , 571 F. Supp. 2d 10 1, 107 (D.D.C. 2008) . “ To warrant a default judgment, the defendant must be considered a totally unresponsive party, and8 its default plainly willful, reflected by its failure to respond to the summons and complaint, the entry of a default, and the motion for a default judgment. ” Teamsters Local 639 , 571 F. Supp. 2d
at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard is met here. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and has not taken any other action indicating an intent to defend its elf in this matter . Accordingly , the court finds that entry of a default judgment is appropriate.
C. Delinquent Contributions When entering a default judgment, the court must make an independent evaluation of the sum to be awarded unless the damages are ce rtain. Adkins , 180 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Under Section 515 of ERISA, “ [e] very employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collecti vely bargained agreement shall

. . . make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement. ” 29 U.S.C. § 1145. In an action concerning delinquent contributions, ERISA directs the court to award a plan : ( 1 ) t he unp aid contributions; ( 2 ) interest on the unp aid contributions; ( 3 ) an amount equal to the greater of either interest on the unpaid contributions or liquidated damages; ( 4 ) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and ( 5 ) other appropriate relief. Id. § 1132(g)(2). “ The unpaid contributions, interest, and liq uidated damages are considered ‘sums certain,’ because their calculations are mandated by ERISA and party agreements. ” Yoccabel
Const. Co. , 293 F.R.D. at 18 ; see also Flynn v. Mastro Masonry Contractors , 2 37 F. Supp. 2d 66, 70 (D.D.C. 2002 ). On t he other hand, attorney’s fees are not considered a “ sum certain ” because the reasonableness of the fees is a “‘judgment call’ which only the Court can make.” Combs v. Coal & Mineral Mgmt. Servs., Inc. , 105 F.R.D. 472, 4 75 (D.D.C. 1984).9 1. Late Payment a nd Underpayment of Employer C ontributions Plaintiffs contend that Defendant owes interest and liquidated damages for prior late payment and underpayment of contributions between October 2012 and February 2015. Anderson Decl. ¶ 1 2. To support their claim for interest and liquidated damages , Pl aintiff s provide an affidavit from Kenneth J. Anderson, Jr., Contribution Compliance Manager with the Fund. Anderson Decl. ¶ 1. In his declaration, Anderson explains that Defendant owes $4,341.04
in interest and li quidated damages

— $3,506.50 in liquidated damages and $834.43 in interest, less an overpayment of $407.89

— for late payment and underpayment of contributions during the relevant time period

. Id. ¶¶ 12, 17. Interest in this case is mandat ed by the parties’ agreements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. (“[I] nterest on unpaid contributions shall be determined by using the rate provided under the plan, or, if none, the rate prescribed under [26 U.S.C. 6621]

. ”). The Pension Fund’s Trust Agreement and its Collections Poli cy provide that an employer delinquent in contributions is liable for interest in the amount of 10 percent per year , as well as liquidated damages

. See Collections Policy § 5 ; Anderson Decl. ¶ ¶ 14

– 16

. Liquidated damages are calculated as the greater of t he interest on the delinquent contributions or 20 percent of the delinquent contributions. See Collections Policy § 5; Anderson Decl. ¶ ¶ 16.

. Based on the affidavit and plan documents , the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of $4,34 1.04 in interest and liquidated damages for prior late payment and underpayment of contributions between October 2012 and February 2015.
2. Amounts Owed Under t he Audit Plaintiff s further claim that an audit revealed unpaid contributions by Defendant in 201 2 and 2013. Joseph Decl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff s maintain that Defendant underreported employees’10 salaries in 2012 and 2013, which led Defendant to pay lower monthly contributions. Plaintiff s seek a default judgment in the amount of $ 91,694.24 in unpaid contri butions, surcharges owed under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“ PPA surcharges ”) , interest, liquid ated damages, and testing fees

. Pls.’ Supp. Mem. at 2. Under the Pension Fund ’s Trust Agreement and Collections Policy , employers self

- report employee ho urs each month to the Pension Fund and that infor mation is used to calculate an employer’s monthly contributions to the plan. See Joseph Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6

. In its monthly report, an employer must list the names of each employee and the number of hours compen sable under the plan or amounts paid in salaries for each employee. Id. ¶ 5. The Collections Policy provides that the Pension Fund may audit any participating employer to verify that the hours and salaries in the monthly reports are the same as those ref lected i n the employer’s payroll documents and federal tax filings. Id. ¶ 7. The Policy further provides that if an audit reveals an underpayment, the employer is liable for the underpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, testing fees

— which in clude the auditor’s time and expenses in performing the payroll review

— and attorney’s fees. Collections Policy § § 4.7 , 4.10

. Pursuant to this policy, t he Pension Fund audited Defendant’s books for the calendar years 2012 and 2013, which revealed discrepan cies between the salaries Defendant reported and the salaries Defendant paid during that time period. Joseph Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 14. Plaintiffs rely on the Joseph Affidavit to support their claim for a default judgment in the amount due for the underreporte d salaries uncovered by the audit. Joseph attests that , pursuant to the audit and plan documents , Defendant owes $47,267.94 in contributions ; $10,987.92 in supplemental contributions

— which are owed because the Fund was in critical status during that time period ; $1,146.44 in Pen sion Protection Act surcharges ; $14,043.14 in interest through January 15,11 2016 ; $ 2,363.40 in liquidated damages ; and $1,221.19 in testing fees. Id

. ¶ 10 ; Collections Policy § 4.10

. Plaintiffs later revised the total amount owed t o incorporate interest calculated through October 21, 2016, and now seeks a default judgment in the amount of $91,694.24 for Defendant underreporting employee salaries in 2012 and 2013. Pls.’ Supp. Mem., at 2; Joseph Decl. ¶ 12. Based on the Joseph Decl aration and plan documents , t he court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to $ 91,694.24 in unpaid contributions , supplemental contributions, PPA surcharges, interest, liquidated damages, and testing fees for underreporting employees’ salaries during 2012

an d 2013 , as revealed by the audit.
D. Withdrawal Liability
ERISA provides that an employer who withdraws from a multiemployer plan is liable to make payments to the plan for its share of unfunded vested benefits. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381, 1391.
A ccording to Sectio n 4203(a) of ERISA, a n employer completely withdraws from a plan when it “(1) permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan, or (2) permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a). O nce an employer

w ithdraws from a plan, the plan sponsor

— such as a joint board of trustees or other group of representatives of the employers

— must determine the amount of the employer’s withdrawal liability , notify the employer, and collect withdrawal liability . 29 U.S.C. § § 1382 , 1002(16)(B)

. Plaintiffs seek a default judgment for withdrawal liability owed by Defendant, as well as interest and liquidated damages, in the amount of $1,187,325.97. Pls.’ Mot., Pls.’ Mem. in Supp., ECF
No. 7

- 1 [hereinafter Pls.’ Mem .], at 13

– 15; Pls.’ Supp. Mem., at 2. The court finds that Defendant withdrew from the plan

. Plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment for withdrawal liability, plus interest and liquidated damages.12 1. Whether Defendant Completely Withdrew from the Plan
Ac cording to Plaintiffs, Defendant “ complete [ly]” withdrew from the plan, within the meaning of Section 4203(a) of ERISA , as of February 28, 2015. Pls.’ M em . at 14 ; Anderson Decl. ¶ 23

. However, neither the Complaint ’s allegations nor Plaintiffs’ supporti ng affidavits
p rovide sufficient facts for the court to reach that conclusion. Nonetheless, other facts within the record , as well as judicially noticeable facts, support a finding that Defendant is subject to withdrawal liability

. P laintiffs ’ Complaint attaches a letter that describes the events leading to Defendant’s cessation of operations. Letter to Liberty House. That letter , in turn , cites to a New Jersey appellate court decision , Liberty House Nursing Home of Jersey City, Inc. v. GRE Jersey City , Inc ., which s ets forth adjudicated facts concerning th e same events as are at issue in this case

. See No. A

- 0206

- 11T1, 2013 WL 1187838 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 22, 2013) , cert. granted by 73 A.3d 509 (mem.) (N.J. 2013) , and appeal dismissed as im providently granted by 103 A.3d 264 (mem.) (N.J. 2014)

. The court takes judicial notice of those adjudicated facts.
See , e.g. , Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 750 F. Supp. 2d 163, 171 (D.D.C. 2010) (recognizing that a court’s “ ability to take notice of adjudicative facts extends to judicial notice of court records in related proceedings ”). 4
I n 2010, Defendant ’s landlord, GRE Properties Jersey City, Inc. (“GRE”), notified Defendant that it would have to quit the premises because the parties had not c ome to terms on an extension of the lease. See Liberty House Nursing Home of Jersey City , 2013 WL 1187838, at * 3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 22, 2013) . That notice led to litigation between Defe ndant

4 The court also takes judicial notice of a February 27, 2015, news article in The Jersey Journal, which states that GRE Jersey City Inc., would take over operations of Liberty House on March 1, 2015, following litigation in which GRE won control of the nursing home’s operations. Patrick Villanova, Jersey City nursing home workers will head to work Sunday unsure if they still have jobs , T HE J ERSEY J OURNAL (Feb. 27, 2015), http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/02/nursing_home_workers _face_uncertain_future_at_jers.html.13 and GRE over two issues: (1) whether GRE had lawf ully terminated Defendant’s lease , and (2) which party was the rightful owner of the “bed rights”

— the authorization to operate a health care facility with a particular number of beds

— at the facility. See id. at *3

– 4. A New Jersey state trial court determ ined that GRE had validly terminated Defendant’s lease and that GRE was the sole owner of the facility’s “bed rights,” meaning only GRE had the legal right to operate the nursing home. Id. at *3. In 2013, t he Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Id. at *1. After Defendant exhausted the issues on appeal, GRE took over operations of the nursing home in 2015

. S ee id

. at *3 n .5. On June 30, 2015, the Pension Fund sent a notice to Defendant stating that Defendant completely withdrew from the plan as of February 28, 2015, and assessing $844,789.39 in provisional withdrawal liability. Withdrawal Liability Assessment; Anderson Decl. ¶ 23. Defendant requested a review of the Pension Fund’s determination , cl aiming that it qualified for an exemption under ERISA Section 4218(1)(A), which exempts from withdrawal liability employers who withdraw solely because of a change in business form if it “ causes no interruption in employer contributions or obligations to c ontribute under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1398; Request for Review

. The Pension Fund disagreed. It concluded that GRE was not merely a new corporate form of Defendant, but as evidenced by the litigation, the two were separate entities and that “Liberty Hou se’s loss of its lease of the premises and license to operate a nursing home to GRE did not change Liberty House’s corporate structure or serve to create a merger between the two entities.” Letter to Liberty House at 2

– 3. Accordingly, the Pension Fund mai ntained that Defendant was responsible for payment of withdrawal liability.14 Based on the foregoing facts, the court agrees with the Pension Fund’s determination that, upon Defendant’s cessation of the facility’s operations and GRE’s assumption of those operations, Defendant had completely withdrawn from the plan

. See 29 U.S.C. § § 1383(a)(2) (defining a “complete withdrawal” to include “when an employer . . . permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan”). GRE was not a successor corporatio n or entity that would have excused Defendant from withdrawal liability under 29 U.S.C. § 1398. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant was required to make withdrawal liability payments under 29 U.S.C. §
1399.
2. Withdrawal Liability Amount A partic ipating employer’s liability for prematurely withdrawing from a multiemployer plan is the sum of the unamortized balances of the employer’s prorated shares , as of the end of the plan year preceding withdrawal. Pls.’ Supp. Mem. at 1 ; Smith Decl. ¶ 2 ; Compl ., Ex. 11,
ECF No. 1

- 13 [hereinafter Pension Plan] , § 10.03(a). H ere, Defendant’s withdrawal liability is based on the sum of the unamortized balances of Defendant’s prorated shares from 2002 to
2014

— from the year Defendant joined the plan to the year pre ceding withdrawal

. Smith Decl. ¶ 4; Smith Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 8

- 1 at 6. Plaintiffs calculated the final withdrawal liability
amount Defendant owe s to be $802,014.04 , before interest and liquidated damages

. Pls.’ Supp.
Mem. at 2 ; Smith Decl. ¶ 5

. The court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to establish withdrawal liability in that amount.
3. Interest Under Section 10.05(d)(2) of the pension p lan , an employer who defaults on withdrawal liability must pay interest in the amount of the prime rate as published in the Wall Street Journal on the first business day of the calendar year in which the payment was due , plus two percent

.15 Pension Plan § 10.05(d)(2). Th at amount will adjust each year thereafter based on the current prime rate , according to the Wall Street Journal , plus two percent

. Id. ; Anderson Decl. ¶ 29. Plaintiffs seek interest in the amount of $224,909.12

. 5 After reviewing the plain language of the parties’ agreement s , Plaintiffs’ submissions, and Plaintiffs exhi bits , the court concludes Plaintiffs are entitled to $224,909.12 in interest on the withdrawal liability owed.
4. Liquidated Damages Further, the p lan provides that , if the court awa rds a judgment in favor of the p lan in a suit over withdrawal liability, t hen the employer must pay liquidated damages of whichever is greater: (1) the amount of interest charged on the unpaid balance; or (2) 20 percent of the unpaid
amount to be awarded. Pension Plan § 10.05(e); Anderson Decl. ¶ 30 ; Smith Decl. ¶ 5

. Accordin g to Smith’s d eclaration, this amount is $1 60,402.81 , or 20 percent of the unpaid amount to be awarded

. The court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to $160,402.81 6 in liquidated damages. Based on the affidavits, the statutory provisions, and the evid ence in the record , the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to $1,187,325.97 in final withdrawal liability, interest, and liquidated damages.
E. Attorney’s Fees Plaintiffs have also requested $10,141 in attorney’ s fees and costs . In support of this

re quest , they submit a declaration fro m Olga Metelitsa, an associate at Moone y, Green , Saindon,

5 Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of interest sought in their filings to the court, and it is not set forth in their exhibits. Accordingly, the court calculated interest by subtracting the principal and liquidate d damages from the total amount of withdrawal liability sought. See Pls.’ Supp. Mem. at 2 n.1 (“[T]he interest sought for the withdrawal liability principal upon default judgment is equal to the prime rate plus 2% in the Wall Street Journal on the first b usiness day of the calendar year in which the payment was due. The separate interest that would be collectively due under a 240

- month installment plan is not sought here.”). 6 Although this amount is less than the interest owed on the unpaid balance, beca use Plaintiffs have requested this sum certain, the court awards only that amount.16 Murphy & Welch, P.C., who served as Plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation . Pls.’ Supp. Mem. at 2; Decl. of Olga Metelitsa, ECF No. 7

- 5 [hereinafter Metelitsa De cl]

. The Metelitsa Declaration states that Plaintiffs have incurred $10,141 in attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D); Combs , 105 F.R.D. at 474. “In the preparation of fe e applications it is insufficient to provide the District Court with very broad summaries of work done and hours logged.” Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def ., 675 F.2d 1319, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam). “The better practice is to pr epare detailed summaries based on contemporaneous time records indicating the work performed by each attorney for whom fees are sought.” Id

. A very broad summary, however, is all that Plaintiffs have provided to the
court.
In a two

- page affidavit , Plai ntiffs provide the names of the attorneys that worked on the case, their total hours spent on the case, a one

- sentence summary of all the work performed, and the billing rates of the attorneys and paralegals

. Metelitsa Decl

. See Pls.’ Mem . at 12

– 13. Thi s will not suffice. The bare bones affidavit is not “sufficiently detailed to permit the District Court to make an independent determination whether or not the hours claimed are justified.” Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans , 675 F.2d at 1327. The affidav it does not, for example, specify the hours spent on a particular task or who performed that task. A bsent such detail s, t he court cannot determine at this time whether the charges are reasonable

. Accordingly, within 14 days of this date , Plaintiffs shall submit a “detailed summar y ” of the work performed by its counsel “based on contemporaneous time records indicating the work performed by each attorney for whom fees are sought.” Id

. Any such detailed summary shall be17 accompanied by counsel’s monthly inv oices to Plaintiffs

. Any privileged portion of the monthly invoices may be redacted, with the unredacted invoice provided to the court in camera.
V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment is granted. The court find s that Plaintiffs are entitled to $4,341.04 in interest and liquidated damages for prior late payment and underpayment of employer contributions; $91,694.24 in unpaid contributions, PPA surcharges, interest, liquidated damages, and testing fees pursuant to an audit; and $1,187,325.97 in withdrawal liability, interest, and liquidated damages. The court will enter a final attorney’s fees and costs award after the court receives more detailed information supporting the request for fees and costs. A separat e Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: February 8 , 2017 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge