Board of Trustees of the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Foley Waterproofing Corp.

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup [granting 19 Motion for Default Judgment]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BAY 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; DOUG ZIEGLER,
as Trustee of the above,

16

ORDER GRANTING
DEFAULT
JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

15

No. C 16-04402 WHA

v.

17

FOLEY WATERPROOFING CORP.,

18

Defendant.
/

19
20
21
22
23
24

INTRODUCTION
In this ERISA collection action, plaintiffs move for default judgment against defendant
of approximately $9,185.92. Default judgment is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
Plaintiffs are multi-employer, employee benefit plans. Defendant is a California

25

corporation and an employer. Plaintiffs filed this action on August 4, 2016, alleging that

26

defendant violated a collective bargaining agreement and certain trust agreements that required

27

defendant to make regular contributions to the Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Trust Fund,

28

Pacific Coast Roofers Pension Plan, East Bay/North Bay Roofers Vacation Trust Fund, Bay

1

Area Counties Roofers Industry Promotion Fund, and Bay Area Counties Roofing Industry

2

Apprenticeship Training Fund. Plaintiffs also claim attorney’s fees and costs incurred in

3

bringing this action, as provided under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. 1332(g).

4

Service was effected on August 9, 2016 (Dkt. No. 11). When defendant failed to file

5

an answer, the Clerk entered default on September 12, 2016 (Dkt. No. 15). Plaintiffs now seek

6

default judgment against defendant.

7

ANALYSIS

8

Federal Rule 55(b)(2) permits a court, following an entry of default, to enter default

9

judgment against a defendant. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).
District courts must consider several factors when exercising discretion to award default

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive

12

claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the

13

possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether default was due to excusable

14

neglect, (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions

15

in the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986).

16

Here, denial of default would prejudice plaintiffs in that they would be required to expend

17

additional time and effort where no answer has ever been filed. Plaintiffs’ complaint has merit, is

18

unopposed, and was filed with sufficient factual detail. Moreover, the amount of money at stake is

19

not so great as to justify a denial of default judgment. There is little, if any, possibility of a dispute

20

concerning material facts, given that no answer was ever filed in this action. There is no evidence

21

that excusable neglect led to the default; in fact, plaintiffs have provided adequate notice of this

22

action. Finally, while it is preferable to decide a case on its merits, reaching a decision here will

23

be impracticable as no other party has appeared to oppose this forfeiture.

24

CONCLUSION

25

Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in the amount of

26

$9,185.92. This amount includes $830.93 in unpaid fringe benefit contributions and audit costs,

27
28
2

1

$4,323,16 in liquidated damages and $183.23 in interest owed for the untimely payment of May

2

and June 2016 contributions, and $3,848.60 for attorney’s fees.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: February 2, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3