1 

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T 

 D I S T R I C T O F N E W J E R S E Y 

 

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. FEDERAL BLDG. & U.S. COURTHOUSE 

 50 WALNUT STREET, P.O. BOX 419 

 NEWARK, NJ 07101-0419 

 (973) 645-6340 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI

 JUDGE 

 LETTER OPINION 

January 4, 2012 

Charles R. Virginia 

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP 

111 Broadway, 14th Floor 

New York, NY 10006 

(Attorney for Plaintiffs)

RE: Trustees of the Local 7 Tile Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. Giacomelli 

Tile, Inc., et al.

 Civil Action No. 11-01846 (WJM) 

Dear Counsel: 

 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. 

There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 The following facts are established by the Complaint, the motion for default 

judgment, and the exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiffs are the trustees of the Local 

7 Tile Industry Welfare Fund, the Local 7 Tile Industry Annuity Fund, and the Tile 

Layers Local Union 52 Pension Fund (collectively, the “Local Funds”) and the trustees of 

the Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund and the International 

Masonry Institute (collectively, the “International Funds”) (the Local Funds and 

International Funds shall be referred to collectively as the “Funds”). Defendants are a tile 

installation contractor, Giacomelli Tile, Inc. (“GTI”); its owner Warren Giacomelli; and 

two tile installation companies, Colvere Tile, Inc. (“Colvere”) and J&J Tile, Inc. (“J&J”). 

 At all relevant times, GTI was a party to a collective bargaining agreement (the 

“CBA”) with the Tile Setters and Tile Finishers Union of New York and New Jersey, 

Case 2:11-cv-01846-WJM-MF Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 242
2 

Local Union No. 7 of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (the 

“Union”). Declaration of Christopher Guy (“Guy Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 9-1. The CBA 

required GTI to make certain monetary contributions to the Funds for all work performed 

in the trade and geographical jurisdiction of the Union (“Covered Work”). Guy Decl. ¶ 3. 

Since 2005, there have been two audits of GTI’s books and records. The first audit 

covered the period of January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006,1

 and the second audit 

covered the period of July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009 (collectively, the 

“Audits”). Declaration of Fred Moss (“Moss Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 9-2. The Audits 

revealed that GTI had failed to make $144,907.93 in required contributions to the Funds. 

Moss Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. 

Plaintiffs commenced this action on March 31, 2011. Compl., ECF No. 1. On 

April 8, 2011, Plaintiffs’ agent served three Summonses and three copies of the 

Complaint to Michelle Nallen, the managing agent of GTI, Colvere, and J&J. See ECF 

Nos. 3, 5-6. On April 8, 2011, Plaintiffs’ agent also served a Summons and Complaint to 

Warren Giacomelli, by serving Raya Sorane, a household member of suitable age and 

discretion residing in the usual place of abode of Mr. Giacomelli. See ECF No. 4. 

Defendants were required to file an Answer or otherwise move with respect to the 

Complaint no later than April 29, 2011. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). To date, all four 

Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, 

the Clerk entered a Default against Defendants on May 6, 2011. Clerk’s Entry of 

Default, ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for default judgment on October 

17, 2011. This motion was served on October 17, 2011. Cert. of Service, ECF No. 10. 

To date, no opposition has been filed. 

 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default. After the Clerk’s entry of 

default pursuant to Rule 55(a), a plaintiff may then seek the Court’s entry of default 

pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2). See Doug Brady, Inc. v. N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Funds, 

250 F.R.D. 171, 177 (D.N.J. 2008). “Before imposing the extreme sanction of default, 

district courts must make explicit factual findings as to: (1) whether the party subject to 

default has a meritorious defense, (2) the prejudice suffered by the party seeking default, 

and (3) the culpability of the party subject to default.” Id. (citing Emcasco Ins. Co. v. 

Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987)). To make these determinations, the Court 

should accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, although the 

Court need not accept the moving party’s legal conclusions or allegations relating to the 

amount of damages. Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir.1990); 

Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532, 535-36 (D.N.J. 2008). 

1

 The first audit covered the period of January 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006; however, Plaintiffs are only 

seeking contributions under the first audit from January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. 

Case 2:11-cv-01846-WJM-MF Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 243
3 

B. Default Judgment is Appropriate 

 After review of the record, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have satisfied the 

requirements for default judgment. The record shows that Defendants have been 

properly served pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) and 4(e)(2)(B). 

See ECF Nos. 3-6. Defendants have failed to respond to the Complaint and the deadline 

for answering the Complaint or filing a responsive motion has passed. See Clerk’s Entry 

of Default, ECF No. 8. When a defendant has “failed to answer, move, or otherwise 

respond to the complaint, the entry of a default judgment against him is appropriate.” See

Palmer v. Slaughter, No. 99-899, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22118, 2000 WL 1010261, at 

*2 (D. Del. July 13, 2000). 

 An analysis of the Doug Brady factors compels an entry of default judgment. 

First, review of the record reveals that Plaintiffs have a legitimate cause of action and 

none of the four Defendants has a meritorious defense. GTI was contractually and 

legally obligated to contribute to the Funds during the time periods covered by the 

Audits. See Exhibit A, GTI CBA, Article IX Section III, ECF No. 9-5; 29 U.S.C. § 1145 

(“Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under 

the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the 

extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of such plan or such agreement.”). The findings of the Audits determined 

that GTI failed to make contributions in the principal amount of $144,907.93, Moss Decl. 

¶¶ 6-7, meaning that GTI failed to make the required contributions in accordance with its 

contractual obligations. Thus, GTI is liable to the Funds under the CBA and ERISA. 

 Colvere and J&J are liable for GTI’s contributions because they are the alter-egos 

of GTI. “In order to decide if two facially independent employers are alter egos, [a court] 

considers whether the two entities have substantially identical ownership, management, 

supervision, business purposes, operation, equipment and premises, and customers.” 

Trafford Distrib. Ctr. v. NLRB, 478 F.3d 172, 176 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Crawford 

Door Sales Co., 226 N.L.R.B. 1144 (1976)). GTI, Colvere, and J&J are all tile 

installation businesses. Guy Decl. ¶ 9. Four out of five of GTI’s employees work for 

Colvere. See Exhibit F, ECF No. 9-10; Exhibit H, ECF No. 9-12. Warren Giacomelli 

explicitly told the trustees of the Funds that he and his family had formed a new 

company, Colvere, to perform tile installation work after GTI ceased operations in 

January 2009. Guy Decl. ¶ 8. Michelle Nallen, Mr. Giacomelli’s sister, is the President 

and sole officer of Colvere and J&J, has held herself out as a representative of GTI and 

Colvere, and executed a separate collective bargaining agreement with the Union as 

President of Colvere. Guy Decl. ¶ 9; Exhibits C-E, L-M, ECF Nos. 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-16, 9-

17. Robert A. Schandler is the sole Agent for both Colvere and J&J. Exhibits L-M, ECF 

Nos. 9-16, 9-17. Based on these facts, the Court finds that Colvere and J&J are alter egos 

of GTI, as GTI, Colvere, and J&J have substantially identical business purposes, 

Case 2:11-cv-01846-WJM-MF Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 244
4 

ownership, management, supervision, and operations. As alter egos of GTI, Colvere and 

J&J are liable for GTI’s delinquent benefits contributions. Stardyne, Inc. v. NLRB, 41 

F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[I]f two entities are found to be alter egos, a collective 

bargaining agreement covering one entity is automatically deemed to cover the other.”). 

 Warren Giacomelli is personally liable for any contributions that GTI failed to 

make in connection with work performed after April 16, 2006. New Jersey law governs 

whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil with respect to GTI, as New Jersey is 

GTI’s state of incorporation and New Jersey is the state with the greatest interest in 

resolving this dispute. See Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. ACE Gaming, LLC, 713 F. Supp. 2d 

427, 443 (D.N.J. 2010) (internal quotations omitted) (“A court applying New Jersey law 

could either look to the target entity’s state of incorporation, or conduct [a] governmental 

interest analysis” to determine whether to piece the corporate veil). The State of New 

Jersey revoked GTI’s corporate charter on April 16, 2006, but Warren Giacomelli 

continued the company’s business operations until January 2009. See Exhibit K, ECF 

No. 9-15; Guy Decl. ¶ 8. Because Mr. Giacomelli continued to operate the business after 

the company’s charter expired, he is personally liable under New Jersey law for all of the 

company’s conduct after April 16, 2006. See Leventhal v. Atlantic Rainbow Painting 

Co., 68 N.J. Super. 406, 413 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961) (“[P]ersons who carry on 

the business of a corporation or of a limited partnership association after the charter has 

expired, or after dissolution, become personally liable as general partners.”); see also 

Matawan Bank v. Matawan Tile Co., 2 N.J. 116, 126-29 (1949). 

 Second, it is clear that Plaintiffs have been prejudiced by Defendants’ failure to 

respond to the Complaint. It has been over eight months since Defendants were served, 

and Defendants have failed to contact the Court or defend their case. As a result of 

Defendants’ failure to respond, Plaintiffs have been unable to move forward in the 

litigation; they have incurred additional costs, including the costs of filing and briefing 

this motion; and they have been delayed in receiving relief. Third, Defendants are 

presumed to be culpable for their failure to answer where, as here, there is nothing before 

the Court to show that Defendants’ failure to file an answer was not willfully negligent. 

See Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Taylor, No. 08-2108, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

16531, 2009 WL 536403, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are 

entitled to a default judgment and their motion is granted. 

C. Damages 

 Section 502(g)(2) of ERISA provides that, upon a finding that an employer has 

violated section 515 of ERISA, a plan is entitled to (1) unpaid contributions, plus interest 

thereon, (2) liquidated damages at rates prescribed by the documents governing the plan, 

(3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and (4) such other legal or equitable relief as the 

court deems appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D) (2011). 

Case 2:11-cv-01846-WJM-MF Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 245
5 

The amount of damages for which GTI, Colvere, and J&J are liable is sum certain. 

In support of their claim for damages against GTI, Colvere, and J&J, the Funds submitted 

an affidavit from Fred Moss, a principal of Marshall & Moss Payroll Compliance 

Services, LLC, the Funds’ auditor, as well as an affidavit from Charles R. Virginia 

(“Virginia Decl.”), Plaintiffs’ attorney. The affidavits establish that GTI failed to make 

contributions in the principal amount of $144,907.93. Moss Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. The Funds are 

also owed $27,188.64 in liquidated damages (Moss Decl. ¶ 7; Virginia Decl. ¶ 3), and 

$71,243.12 in interest. Moss Decl. ¶ 7; Virginia Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4. Pursuant to Article IX, 

Section 3(M) of the CBA, the Funds are owed $21,673.75 for audit costs. See Moss 

Decl. ¶ 10. In addition, the Funds are owed attorneys’ fees totaling $6,758.00 and 

litigation costs totaling $596.18. Virginia Decl. ¶¶ 5, 12. The Court finds the request for 

fees and costs to be reasonable. Finally, it appears that GTI made a $10,000 payment to 

the Funds in March 2011. Based on these figures, it appears that the total amount still 

owed to the Funds equals $262,367.62. 

The amount of damages for which Warren Giacomelli is liable is not sum certain. 

Mr. Giacomelli is liable for delinquent contributions only with regard to work performed 

after April 16, 2006. Plaintiffs have not submitted any materials specifying the amount 

of damages owed after that date. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will be given 30 days to submit 

a filing setting forth the amount of monetary damages owed by Mr. Giacomelli. See

Comdyne, 908 F.2d at 1149 (entry of default judgment where damages are not sum 

certain requires an application to the Court to prove damages). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is GRANTED. 

Judgment shall be entered against GTI, Colvere, and J&J, jointly and severally, for 

$262,367.62. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the entry of this Court’s Order to submit 

a filing setting forth the amount of damages for which Warren Giacomelli is personally 

liable. An Order accompanies this Opinion.

 /s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-01846-WJM-MF Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 246