Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. North Bay Waterproofing, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 7/26/2013. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BAY

16

AREA ROOFERS HEALTH & WELFARE
TRUST FUND, PACIFIC COAST
ROOFERS PENSION PLAN, EAST
BAY/NORTH BAY ROOFERS
VACATION TRUST FUND, BAY AREA
COUNTIES ROOFING INDUSTRY
PROMOTION FUND, BAY AREA
COUNTIES ROOFING INDUSTRY
APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING FUND;
BRUCE LAU, TRUSTEE,

17

Case No. 12-cv-02374 NC

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

18

ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 26

v.

19 NORTH BAY WATERPROOFING, INC., a
20
21

California corporation;
Defendant.

22
23

Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against North Bay

24 Waterproofing, Inc. seeking an order compelling North Bay to comply with an audit of its
25 payroll records for the period of April 1, 2011 to the present. Dkt. No. 26. A hearing on the
26 motion is scheduled for July 31, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District
27 Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
28

The Court notes that plaintiffs’ complaint alleges North Bay breached a collective
Case No. 12-cv-02374 NC
ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ing
ent
ocal
he
Union of Ro
oofers, Wate
erproofers a
and
1 bargaini agreeme with Lo 40 of th United U
W
a
.
’
2 Allied Workers by refusing to permit an audit. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiffs’ motion,
r,
ief
pect
a
ach
agreement w Local 4 and
with
40,
3 however seeks reli with resp to the alleged brea of the a
pect
reach of an additional collective b
c
bargaining a
agreement w Local 81 of
with
4 with resp to a br
ted
o
W
fers
lied
rs.
t.
5 the Unit Union of Roofers, Waterproof and All Worker See Dkt No. 26 at 3-4.
h
intiffs shoul be prepared to addre (1) why the Court should gran relief
ld
ess
y
nt
6 At the hearing, plai
pect
b
a
with
has
n
7 with resp to the collective bargaining agreement w Local 81 which h not been
i
plaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“ default judgment m not dif in
F
.
“[a]
must
ffer
8 alleged in the comp
ed
nt,
d
in
dings”); see also, e.g., B
Bob
9 kind from, or excee in amoun what is demanded i the plead
uther Electr Inc., No. 09-cv-32 JF (RS), 20 WL 305
ric
009
52635, *2-3 (N.D.
3
10 Tragni, et al. v. Sou
0
pt.
9)
gment with respect to relief not a
h
alleged in th
he
11 Cal. Sep 22, 2009 (denying default judg
1
)
h
ld
red
mit
dit
g
12 complaint); and (2) why North Bay shoul be requir to subm to an aud covering the
2
riod
il
hrough the present whe the collective bargaining agre
p
ere
eements
13 time per of Apri 1, 2011 th
3
d
fective date of August 1, 2011. S Dkt. No. 26-3 ¶¶ 2, 4.
e
See
,
14 provided appear to have an eff
4

15
5

Th plaintiffs must serve North Bay with this order in a m
he
s
e
y
manner to e
ensure notic
ce.

16
6

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

17
7

Date: July 26 2013
6,

18
8

_________
__________
____
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0237 NC
74
ORDER RE: HEAR
R
RING ON MO
OTION
FOR DE
EFAULT JUD
DGMENT

2