Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Garcia et al

Filing 25

Order by Hon. James Donato granting 18 Motion for Default Judgment. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

8

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LABORERS HEALTH & WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

7

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 14-cv-02971-JD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 18

v.
RICHARD RAY GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiffs sued defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)

15

and the Labor Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 1132; 29 U.S.C. § 185. The complaint

16

and summons were served on July 16, 2014. Dkt. No. 10-11. The defendants have not appeared

17

or answered. Plaintiffs requested that the clerk enter default on August 19, 2014, which the clerk

18

did the following day. Dkt. Nos. 13, 15. On December 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for

19

default judgment. Dkt. No. 18. The Court grants the motion.

20

Under FRCP 55(b)(2), a party may apply to the Court for entry of judgment by default.

21

“The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe

22

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court may consider the following factors in

23

deciding whether to grant a motion for default judgment:

24
25
26
27

(1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff, (2) the merits of
plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)
the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a
dispute concerning the material facts, (6) whether the default was
due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). The second and third Eitel factors -- the

28

1

merits of the claim and the sufficiency of the complaint -- are generally considered together

2

because after the entry of default, well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as

3

true, except as to the amount of damages. Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th

4

Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently states a sound cause of action for breach of fiduciary

5

duty under ERISA.

6

The remaining factors, on balance, also weigh in favor of granting default judgment. The

7

plaintiffs will be prejudiced if default judgment is not granted because they will be left with no

8

way to recover damages. The requested amount is reasonable considering the liquidated damages

9

and interest mandated by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Because defendants have not appeared, there is
no indication that their default is due to excusable neglect, that the material facts are subject to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dispute, or that a decision on the merits will be possible.

12

Defendant is ordered to pay the Trust Funds $11,455.04 in unpaid contributions, $3,774.01

13

in liquidated damages and interest, $4,430.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,146.35 in costs. To the

14

extent plaintiffs wish to pursue other unpaid contributions, they should do so in a separate action.

15

The Court will not retain jurisdiction. The action is dismissed and the case is closed.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2015
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2