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)

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