Mie Order Form’o39/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

(»,

date mailed notice
courtroom,

deputy’s
initials

WAH

Date/time received in

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials

Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 3030 DATE 10/17/2001
CASE Valerie Jo Colvett etc. Vs. Global Real Estate etc.
TITLE :
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
03) Qo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) Q Answer brief to motion due _- Reply to answer brief due.
(4) im) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for) on set for at
(7) i Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) General Rule21 OFRCP4i(a\(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) «ff [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant now asks us to vacate that
judgment. That motion is denied.
al ff {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. oct 1 & 200 i
| Docketing to mail notices. an
Mail AO 450 form. a
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ee EG



ray

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION bo
VALERIE JO COLVETT, as Managing a CKE iy ED
Director of International Union of Cr d 8 2
Operating Engineers, Local 399 Health 007
and Welfare Trust, .
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 01 C 3030

GLOBAL REAL ESTATE INVESTORS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
LLC, )
)
)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff sued on April 27, 2001, for delinquent welfare plan contributions for the
period January 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001, in the amount of $6,679. Defendant entered
an appearance on May 16, 2001, and obtained an extension of time to answer or otherwise
plead until June 1, 2001. It did not, however, answer or otherwise plead by June 1, 2001, or
at any time thereafter. We were advised at a status on June 25, 2001, that the parties were
talking, and at a status on July 26, 2001, that the matter was not quite gone. Defendant’s
counsel was apparently not in court either time. The next status was thereafter set for August
31, 2001. Four days before that date plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment, noticed
up for August 30, 2001. That motion recited that defendant appeared to have satisfied its
delinquent health and welfare obligations after suit was filed (and it undoubtedly had), but
that it had not paid fees and costs of $3,107. It appended an affidavit representing that 15.7

hours had been expended, a total of $2,890, and that costs were $217. Defendant’s counsel

\O

did not appear August 30, 2001, and we entered the judgment.

Defendant now asks us to vacate that judgment. That motion is denied.


No. 01 C 3030 Page 2

The burden of defendant’s motion is that the suit was filed “without making any
appropriate demand on the Defendant for amounts due under the contract” (defendant does
not indicate what it means by that — nor is the motion verified — but it does indicate that some
demand was made, even though defendant did not consider it appropriate); that it had agreed
to pay the delinquent contributions both before and after suit was filed but not the fees and
costs; and that it paid the delinquent contributions before the motion for default was filed.
It also complains about the manner in which notice of that motion was provided and the
amount of the fees. In short, it believes that it should not have to pay any fees or costs because
the suit was unnecessary or, at the least, plaintiff should have to furnish better substantiation
of the fees claim.

The amount involved is, by federal case standards, rather modest, and we cannot say
that 15.7 hours, from start to finish, is an unreasonable amount of time. If we now open this
up, defendant will in all likelihood have to pay the additional fees incurred by plaintiff. What
we do know is that the contributions had not been paid when suit was filed, that defendant
paid the contributions thereafter but otherwise ignored the lawsuit, and that it did have notice
of the motion for fees and costs but did not appear. Nothing suggests that plaintiff misled the
defendant. In those circumstances we are not disposed to vacate the judgment, particularly
as a revisiting of the matter could well lead to additional expense for defendant for its own

counsel and for counsel for the plaintiff.

Former b. Morr

\ JAMES B. MORAN
Senior Judge, U. S. District Court

OS, ¥)_, 2001.