Western States Insulators and Allied Workers Pension Plan et al v. Jenco Mechanical Insulatoion Inc

Filing 23

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/12/2012. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

WESTERN STATES INSULATORS AND
ALLIED WORKERS PENSION PLAN, et
al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiffs,

No. C-11-00175 EMC

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE

v.
JENCO MECHANICAL INSULATION,
INC.,

13
14

Defendant.
___________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiffs are Western States Insulators and Allied Workers Pension Plan, Western States

17

Insulators and Allied Workers Individual Account Plan, and Western States Insulators and Allied

18

Workers Health Plan (collectively, "Plaintiffs Benefit Funds"). Plaintiffs Benefit Funds are

19

employee benefit plans, maintained for the purpose of providing retirement, health and welfare, and

20

related benefits to eligible participants. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant Jenco Mechanical

21

Insulation Inc. ("Jenco"), asserting claims pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act

22

("ERISA"), see 29 U.S.C. 1132. After Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint, default

23

was entered against Defendant on July 25, 2011. See Docket No. 17. Plaintiffs thereafter moved for

24

default judgment on December 30, 2011. See Docket No. 21. Having considered Plaintiffs' brief

25

and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby orders that supplemental briefing and/or evidence

26

be provided as follows.

27
28

1
2

A.

3

Collective Bargaining Agreement and Trust Agreements
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is "required to make contributions to the

4

Plaintiffs Benefit Funds for each hour worked by its bargaining unit employees at the rate and in the

5

manner specified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Trust Agreements." Compl. ¶ 11.

6

Plaintiffs further assert that "[p]ursuant to the Trust Agreements and the Collective Bargaining

7

Agreement, Defendant is required to provide access to the records necessary for the Benefit Funds to

8

determine whether Defendant complied with its obligation to contribute to the Plaintiffs Benefit

9

Funds." Compl. ¶ 12. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is "obligated to pay the attorney
and auditor fees and court costs incurred by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Collective Bargaining

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Agreement, the Trust Agreements . . . ." Compl. ¶ 15. However, Plaintiffs fail to provide copies of

12

both agreements in support of their motion for default judgment. Thus, it is unclear whether the

13

agreements required Defendant to make such payments and provide Plaintiffs access to its records.

14

More importantly, it is unclear from the record as it stands whether the agreements apply to

15

Defendant at all. The Court therefore orders that Plaintiffs provide any and all evidence establishing

16

that the agreements bind Defendant to such obligations (e.g, the Collective Bargaining Agreement

17

and Trust Agreements, any letters of assent to those agreements, etc.).

18

B.

19

Eitel Factors
It is within the court's discretion to grant or deny a motion for default judgment. Board of

20

Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Perez, 2011 WL 6151506, at *6

21

(N.D.Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (citing Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WL

22

2889490, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jul. 19, 2010). The Ninth Circuit has directed courts to consider the

23

following factors in deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to

24

plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the

25

sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts; (6)

26

whether defendant's default was the product of excusable neglect; and (7) the strong public policy

27

favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

28

2

1

In their motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs fail to address the Eitel factors. Hence,

2

Plaintiffs fail to explain why they are entitled to default judgment for their claims. Plaintiffs shall

3

file supplemental briefing explaining why they are entitled to default judgment based on the Eitel

4

factors. In particular, Plaintiffs should provide a complete discussion on Eitel factors (2) and (3).

5

See Philip Morris U.S.A. v. Castworld Prods., 219 F.R.D 494, 499 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (noting the

6

second and third Eitel factors "require that a plaintiff state a claim on which the [plaintiff] may

7

recover") (citation omitted).

8

C.

9

Service
The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not appear to served the motion for default judgment on

Defendant. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve a copy of their motion for default judgment on Defendant

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

within three days of the filing of this order. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall file a proof of service with

12

the Court.

13

D.

14
15
16
17

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file the above-described supplemental briefing

along with any and all supporting evidence within one week of the date of this order.
Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant within three days of the filing of this
order. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall file a proof of service with the Court.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: January 12, 2012

23

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

3