Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Cazadores Construction, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/20/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2018)

1

4

Ronald L. Richman, SBN 139189
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.352.2701
E-mail:[e-mail]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LABORERS TRAINING AND RETRAINING
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA,

20

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
Date:
Time:
Location:
Before:

February 14, 2018
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
San Francisco Division
Hon. William H. Orrick

Plaintiffs,

18
19

Case No.: 17-cv-05242-WHO

vs.
CAZADORES CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California corporation,

21
Defendant.
22
23
24

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court awarding default judgment against defendant

25

Cazadores Construction, Inc. on the First Cause of Action for Breach of Collective Bargaining

26

Agreement, Second Cause of Action for Recovery of Unpaid Trust Fund Contributions, and

27

Third Cause of Action for Mandatory Injunction, pursuant to ERISA, §§ 502(g)(2), 515;

28

–1–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

29 U.S.C. §§ 1145, 1132(g)(2); ERISA §§ 409(a), 502(a)(2); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1109(a), 1132(a)(2).

2

See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] at ¶¶ 8-24.

3

Pursuant to the First Cause of Action, plaintiffs are entitled to recover $450.00 in

4

liquidated damages for employee fringe benefit contributions that were paid, but paid late, for

5

the period July – September 2014. See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] at ¶13, Declaration of Michelle

6

Lauziere in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (“Lauziere Decl.”) at ¶ 17, Ex. I

7

Dkt. No. 18].

8

Pursuant to the Second Cause of Action, based on an audit conducted by plaintiffs Trust

9

Funds on June 24, 2014, for outstanding employee fringe benefit contributions not reported, and

10

not paid due and owing for the period August – November 2011; January, March, May –

11

December 2012; and May – December 2013, plaintiffs are entitled to recover the following:

12
13
14
15





§ 1132(g)(2)(A) unpaid contributions:
$100,651.23
§ 1132(g)(2)(B) interest:
$90,569.96
§ 1132(g)(2)(C) interest:
$90,569.96
Total:
$281,791.15
See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] at ¶¶ 17-20; Lauziere Decl. ¶¶ 18-21, Exs. J-L [Dkt. No. 18].

16

Pursuant to the Third Cause of Action, plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction to

17

audit the books and records of Cazadores Construction, Inc. for the period January 1, 2014

18

through the last completed quarter prior to entry of judgment. See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] at

19

¶¶ 22-24.
Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of

20
21

$$4,227.00. See accompanying Declaration of Ronald L. Richman in Support of Plaintiffs’

22

Motion for Default Judgment (“Richman Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. A [Dkt. No. 19].

23
24
25

I. BACKGROUND
A.

Plaintiffs Laborers Trust Funds
Plaintiffs Trust Funds are multi-employer, employee benefit plans within the meaning of

26

§§ 3(3) and 3(37) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C.

27

§§ 1002(3) and 1002(37). The Trustees of the Boards of Trustees are the administrators and

28

named fiduciaries for the Laborers Trust Funds.

–2–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

The Trust Funds, established under trust agreements, consist of all employee fringe benefit

2

contributions that are to be made by employers pursuant to collective bargaining agreements as

3

well as all returns on contributions and any other property received or held by the Trust Funds.

4

(Lauziere Decl. ¶ 10, Exs. A & B [Dkt. No. 18].) The Trust Agreements for each Fund contain

5

identical terms and conditions. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 11. [Dkt. No. 18])
Further, Section 13 of Article IV – Functions: Powers of the Board, provides for the

6
7

establishment and maintenance of the Annuity Fund and Annuity Plan. Section 13 designates the

8

Trustees of the Pension Trust Fund as named fiduciaries with exclusive authority to control,

9

manage and administer the Annuity Fund and Plan within the Laborers Pension Trust Fund for

10

Northern California. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. C [Dkt. No. 18].)

11

The Trust Funds provide a wide variety of benefits for laborers, retired laborers and other

12

related covered employees on whose behalf employee fringe benefit contributions are made

13

pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The duties of the Boards of Trustees to the Trust

14

Funds include ensuring that employers who are signatories to the collective bargaining agreements

15

comply with the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreements, namely, payments

16

and contributions to the Trust Funds on behalf of the covered employees. The Trust Agreement

17

permits the Boards of Trustees to seek judicial relief to recover prompt payment of contributions

18

due, including the recovery of delinquent contributions, and further, to seek all attorneys’ fees and

19

costs incurred in a lawsuit to recover the delinquent contributions. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. D

20

[Dkt. No. 18].)

21

The Trust Agreement further provides that an employer must submit to an audit by the

22

Board of Trustees. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. E [Dkt. No. 18].)

23

B.

24

Defendant Cazadores Construction, Inc.
On May 3, 2011, Cazadores Construction. Inc. (“Cazadores Construction”) executed a

25

Memorandum Agreement with the Northern California District Council of Laborers (“Laborers

26

Union”). By virtue of its execution of the Memorandum Agreement, Cazadores Construction

27

became bound to a written collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers Union entitled the

28

–3–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

Laborers’ Master Agreement For Northern California (“Master Agreement”). (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 6,

2

Ex. F [Dkt. No. 18].)

3

Section 28 of the Laborers Master Agreement requires that employers make contributions

4

to the Trust Funds based on the hours that their respective employees worked as laborers.

5

(Lauziere Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. G [Dkt. No. 18].)

6

Employers are to pay the employee fringe benefit contributions on or before the 25th day of

7

the month immediately succeeding the month in which the employee’s work was performed. In

8

the event that the employer fails to make the monthly installments on or before the 25th day of the

9

month in which the employee fringe benefit contributions are due, the employers are subject to

10

interest at the rate of 1.5% per month as well as liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are set at

11

$150 for each month that the contribution is delinquent. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. H [Dkt.

12

No. 18.).

13
14

II.LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to enter a final judgment in a

15

case following a defendant’s default. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F.

16

Supp.2d 995, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Whether to enter a judgment lies within the court’s

17

discretion. Id. at 999 (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F. 2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986).

18

Before assessing the merits of a default judgment, a court must confirm that it has

19

subject matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the parties, as well as

20

ensure the adequacy of service on the defendant. See In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir.

21

1999). If the court finds these elements satisfied, it turns to the following factors (the “Eitel

22

factors” to determine whether it should grant a default judgment:

23
24
25
26
27
28

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the 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 material facts [,] (6) whether the default was
due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decision on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F. 2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Upon Entry
of default, all factual allegations within the complaint are accepted as true, except those
allegations relating to the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys. Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915,
–4–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). Where a default judgment is granted, the scope of relief “must not differ

2

in kind from, or exceed in, amount what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).

3
4

III. DISCUSSION
A.

Jurisdiction and Service of Process

5

In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine

6

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172

7

F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)(“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed

8

to plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction

9

over both the subject matter and the parties.”).

10

1.

11

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

12

(granting labor union organizations power to sue employers in federal court), 29 U.S.C. § 1132

13

(empowering ERISA plan fiduciaries to bring civil actions to enforce plan terms), and

14

supplementary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

15

2.

16

The Court has personal jurisdiction because the Trust Funds contributions are made to,

Personal Jurisdiction

17

and benefits are paid from, a corporate co-trustee bank in this judicial district (see Complaint

18

[Dkt. No. 1] at ¶ 2) and because Cazadores Construction has its principal place of business in El

19

Dorado Hills, California (see Complaint [Dkt. No. 1], at ¶ 7).

20

3.

21

On September 24, 2017, Cazadores Construction was served with the Summons and

Service of Process on Defendant

22

Complaint. [Dkt. No. 10.] Cazadores Construction failed to appear and on November 9, 2017

23

the Clerk of Court entered the default of Cazadores Construction. [Dkt. No. 14.]

24

B.

25

Application to the Case at Bar.
In Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) the Court set forth the

26

following seven factors to consider when addressing a motion for default judgment: (1) the

27

possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the

28

sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at state in the action; (5) the possibility of a

–5–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and

2

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

3

merits. As discussed below, all the factors weigh heavily in favor of granting plaintiffs Trust

4

Funds’ motion for default judgment.

5

1.

6

The first factor weighs in favor of granting default judgment because “if Plaintiffs’

Possibility of prejudice to plaintiffs.

7

motion for default judgment is not granted, Plaintiffs will likely be without other recourse for

8

recovery.” Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). The

9

harm suffered by defendant Cazadores Construction’s employees by the loss of their benefits

10

outweighs any harm suffered by defendant in having a default judgment entered against it.
Merits of plaintiffs’ substantive claims and sufficiency of the complaint.

11

2.

12

Both the second and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of entry of default judgment. The

13

evidence presented by plaintiffs Trust Funds shows that defendant Cazadores Construction was

14

bound by a written collective bargaining agreement by which it agreed to become bound by the

15

written Trust Agreements that established the Trust Funds. See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 9;

16

(Lauziere Decl. ¶ 6, Exs. A-F [Dkt. No. 18]). Plaintiffs’ Complaint pleads the elements that

17

defendant violated 29 U.S.C. § 1145 by failing to pay contributions owed. See Complaint [Dkt.

18

No. 1] ¶¶ 8-24; (Lauziere Decl. ¶¶ 17-21, Exs. I-L [Dkt. No. 18]).

19

In addition, the Complaint pleads the elements to satisfy 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) which

20

entitles the plaintiffs to unpaid contributions, interest thereon, liquidated damages, and

21

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for amounts owed under 29 U.S.C. § 1145. See Complaint

22

[Dkt. No. 1] ¶¶ 8-24.

23

Based on the above, plaintiffs have submitted a legally sufficient Complaint which will

24

prevail on the merits. See Bd. of Trs. of the Clerks v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Co., Inc., 2010

25

WL 4922677, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010).

26

3.

27

“When the money at stake in the litigation is substantial or unreasonable, default

28

Sum of the money at stake.

judgment is discouraged.” Bd. of Trs. v. Core Concrete Const., Inc., 2012 WL 380304, at *4

–6–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012). But “where the sum of money at stake is tailored to the specific

2

misconduct of the defendant, default judgment may be appropriate.” Id. (citing Bd of Trs. of

3

the Sheet Metal Workers Health Care Plan v. Superhall Mechanical, Inc., 2011 WL 2600898 at

4

*2 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2011)).

5

Defendant owes $100,651.23 for principal contributions not reported, and not paid,

6

along with interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Here, the amounts owed are tailored to the

7

specific misconduct of the defendant, i.e., its failure to pay trust fund contributions on behalf of

8

its covered employees, and are appropriate. As a result, this factor also weighs in favor of

9

granting default judgment.

10

4.

11

Defendant failed to appear in the litigation resulting in this Court entering its default.

Possibility of a dispute concerning material facts.

12

Plaintiffs conducted an audit, presented the results to defendant, and defendant chose not to

13

engage in this litigation. There is no reason to believe there is any dispute of the facts contained

14

in the Complaint.

15

5.

16

There is no evidence that defendant’s failure to participate in this litigation or participate

17

Whether default was due to excusable neglect.

in this proceeding is due to excusable neglect.

18

6.

19

Finally, while policy grounds favor a resolution on the merits of this dispute, that policy

Policy favoring decisions on the merit.

20

is outweighed by the prompt resolution of this matter. Plaintiffs have already been prejudiced

21

by a loss of Trust Fund assets due to defendant’s failure to pay trust fund contributions on behalf

22

of its covered employees. The strong policy favoring efficient resolution of collections actions

23

under ERISA must be given great deference. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas

24

Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Serv., 870 F.2d 1148, 1152 (7th Cir. 1989).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

–7–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1
2

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT
A.

3

The Trust Funds are Entitled to Recover Outstanding Employee Fringe Benefit
Contributions Due and Owing, Interest and an Additional Amount Equal to the
Greater of Interest or Liquidated Damages.

4

1.

First Claim For Relief, Recovery of Liquidated Damages and Interest on
Contributions Paid, But Paid Late

5
6
7
8
9

Cazadores Construction is liable for liquidated damages on contributions that were paid,
but paid late.
ERISA 29 U.S.C. section 1132(g)(2)(E) provides that the Court may award “such other
legal and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” This “other legal and equitable

10

relief” includes interest and liquidated damages on employee fringe benefit contributions that

11

were paid but paid late. In Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United

12

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 875 F.2d 212, 217 (9th Cir. 1989), the court found that section

13

1132(g)(2)(E) does not preclude alternative contractual remedies. Id. at 216. Idaho Plumbers

14

recognized that interest and liquidated damages could be awarded for contributions that were

15

paid but paid late. Id. at 218. The issue was the amount of liquidated damages, not whether the

16

court had authority to award liquidated damages (the Trust Funds in that case had failed to

17

advise the court why the liquidated damages rose from 10% to 20%). Id.; see also Board of

18

Trustees v. JRD, 99 F. Supp.2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 1995). In JRD, the employer paid the

19

contributions, but paid late. The court awarded liquidated damages for the contributions paid

20

but paid late. Id. at 1118; see also Northeast Administrators v. Albertsons, 104 F.3d 253 (9th

21

Cir. 1996).

22

During the period July – September 2014 Cazadores Construction paid employee fringe

23

benefit contributions as reported, but failed to pay the employee fringe benefit contributions on

24

time, i.e. prior to the 25th of the month immediately succeeding the month in which the

25

employee’s work was performed. For example, payment of the July 2014 contributions due and

26

owing is due on before the 25th of August 2014. In each instance, Cazadores Construction failed

27

to pay contributions on time. Liquidated damages on contributions that were paid, but paid late

28

amount to $450.00. (Lauziere Decl. at ¶ 17, Ex. I [Dkt. No. 18].)

–8–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

2.

Second Claim for Relief, Recovery of Unpaid Trust Fund Contributions;
Contributions Not Reported, Not Paid (Results of Audit).

2
3

On June 24, 2014, plaintiffs conducted an audit of Cazadores Construction covering the

4

period June 2011 – December 2013. The result of the audit is that Cazadores Construction failed

5

to report and failed to pay contributions on behalf of its covered employees for the period August –

6

November 2011; January, March, May – December 2012; and May – December 2013 in the

7

principal amount of $100,651.23. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 18, Exs. J & K [Dkt. No. 18].) The audit

8

report and summary show a total of 5,298.5 hours of covered work not reported, and not paid. The

9

amount due and owing for the Vacation-Holiday, Pension, Health and Welfare, Training and

10

Retraining, and Annuity Trust Funds is $100,651.23. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 18, Exs. J & K [Dkt.

11

No. 18].)
Pursuant to the Liquidated Damage Program – Board Policy, employers are subject to

12
13

interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, as well as liquidated damages, set at $150 for each month

14

that the contribution is delinquent. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. H [Dkt. No. 18].) Interest was

15

calculated at 1.5% per month from the month in which each delinquent contribution for each Trust

16

Fund was recorded and accumulated, through October 26, 2017. The total interest due is

17

$90,569.96. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. L [Dkt. No. 18].)

18

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(B) and (C), Plaintiffs Trust Funds are entitled to an

19

additional award in an amount equal to the greater of the interest on the unpaid contributions or

20

liquidated damages at the contract rate. The liquidated damages assessed for the contributions

21

reported, not paid, amount to $1,500.00. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. L [Dkt. No. 18].) Therefore,

22

since the amount of the liquidated damages assessed is less than the interest, Plaintiffs Trust Funds

23

are entitled to an additional award of interest at $90,569.96. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 20. Ex. L [Dkt.

24

No. 18].)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

–9–
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Based on the above, for contributions not reported and not paid, Plaintiffs are entitled to an
award under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(A), (B) and (C) in the following amount:




§ 1132(g)(2)(A) unpaid contributions:
§ 1132(g)(2)(B) interest:
§ 1132(g)(2)(C) interest:
Total:
(Lauziere Decl. ¶ 21) [Dkt. No. 18].
3.

$100,651.23
$90,569.96
$90,569.96
$281,791.15

Third Claim for Relief For Mandatory Injunction, Compelling an Audit of
Cazadores Construction’s Books and Records.

8
9

Plaintiffs request a mandatory injunction compelling Cazadores Construction to submit

10

to an audit of its financial records for the period January 1, 2014 through the last completed

11

quarter prior to the entry of judgment in order to determine the full amount of employer

12

contributions owed to the Trust Funds.

13

Under the Article IV, Section 7 of Trust Agreement, Cazadores Construction is

14

contractually obligated to submit to an audit of financial records by the Board of Trustees.

15

(Lauziere Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. E [Dkt. No. 18].) Furthermore, the right of employee benefit plans to

16

enforce such power to audit is long and well established. See generally, Central States,

17

Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., 472 U.S. 559, 571 n. 12,

18

105 S. Ct. 2833, 2840 n.12 (1985). An audit is “well within the authority of the trustees as

19

outlined in the trust documents” and is part of “proper plan administration.” Id. at 2846.

20

Based on the above, plaintiffs are entitled to an audit of Cazadores Construction’s books

21

and records for the period January 1, 2014 through the last completed quarter prior to entry of

22

judgment.

23

4.

Plaintiffs Trust Funds are Entitled to Recover Their Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs.

24
25

ERISA, § 502(g)(2)(D) and the Trust Agreement at Article IV, Section 3 (Lauziere Decl.

26

¶ 13, Ex. D [Dkt. No. 18]) provide that the employer is to reimburse the Trust Funds for attorneys’

27

fees and costs incurred in a suit to enforce payment of outstanding contributions. The law of firm

28

of Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, counsel for Plaintiffs Trust Funds, charged attorneys’ fees and

– 10 –
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

costs for this lawsuit in the amount of $4,227.00. See accompanying Declaration of Ronald L.

2

Richman in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (“Richman Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. A

3

[Dkt. No. 19]. Based on the above, Plaintiffs Trust Funds seek to recover attorneys’ fees and costs

4

against Cazadores Construction in the amount of $4,227.00.

5
6
7
8

V. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against
defendant under the First, Second and Third Claims for Relief, in the following amount:
Liquidated Damages on Contributions
Reported, but Not Paid:

$450.00

9
Contributions Not Reported, Not Paid (Audit):
10
11
12





13
14

1132(g)(2)(A) unpaid contributions:
§ 1132(g)(2)(B) interest:
§ 1132(g)(2)(C) interest:
Sub-Total:

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs:

16

$4,227.00
TOTAL:

15

$100,651.23
$90,569.96
$90,569.96
$281,791.15

$286,468.15

Plaintiffs are also entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling defendant to produce its

17

books and records for the period January 1, 2014 through the last completed quarter prior to

18

entry of judgment. (Lauziere Decl. ¶ 23 [Dkt. No. 18].)

19

DATED: February 20, 2018

20
21
By:
22

HON. WILLIAM H. ORRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
4830-5151-3948.1

25
26
27
28

– 11 –
ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT