Burns et al v. R.C. Knapp, Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 29 Amended MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to R.C. Knapp, Inc., Richard Christopher Knapp filed by Richard Piombo, Heavy and Highway Committee, Operating Engineers and Participating Employers Pre-Apprenticeship, Apprentice and Journeymen Affirmative Action Training Fund, Operating Engineers Local Union No.3 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Russell E. Burns, Pensioned Ope rating Engineers' Health and Welfare Fund, Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 29 Amended MOTION for Default Judgment by the Court as to R.C. Knapp, Inc., Richard Christopher Knapp. Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2014 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Supplement briefing due 10/5/14. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/20/14. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 RUSSELL E. BURNS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 13-cv-05209-CW (KAW) R.C. KNAPP, INC., et al., Defendants. 10 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 11 Dkt. No. 29 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 12 13 On May 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant R.C. 14 Knapp, Inc. (Dkt. No. 26.) On May 20, 2014, the motion was referred to the undersigned for 15 report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 27.) On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed and noticed an 16 amended motion for default judgment before the undersigned. (Pls.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 29.) On 17 August 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended proposed judgment and the declaration of Muriel B. 18 Kaplan in support, which included additional costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as a decrease in the 19 amount of unpaid contributions owed, and additional interest. (Dkt. Nos. 48 & 49.) 20 21 22 Upon review of Plaintiffs’ moving papers, the Court requires supplemental briefing to address the following issues: 1. As is, Plaintiffs’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees is insufficient to support an 23 award, as the conflicting information in the motion makes it impossible for the court to 24 ascertain the amount sought. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 2, 8:25-9:1, 17:16-22, 18:16-19.) 25 Further, Plaintiffs did not provide any billing records, depriving the Court of the ability 26 to determine whether the time billed was reasonable. Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing 27 must include copies of the actual billing records, as well as specific information 28 regarding the experience of each attorney and paralegal to support their billing rates. 1 To facilitate the Court’s review, any supplemental briefing should include all 2 attorneys’ fees sought, and be accompanied by a supporting declaration. 3 2. Explain how the amount of liquidated damages sought does not exceed the 20% 4 statutory maximum in ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii). Also, specifically 5 address why March 2013 and April 2013 do not have contribution balances, which the 6 Court interprets to mean that Defendant did not have unpaid contributions, and yet, 7 respectively, $3,202.88 and $3,230.22 in liquidated damages were assessed. (See Pls.’ 8 Mot. at 2.) 9 10 Accordingly, the Court continues the August 21, 2014 hearing until October 2, 2014, and Plaintiffs shall file the supplemental briefing on or before September 5, 2014. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Additionally, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on Defendant. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: August 20, 2014 ______________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?