Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 89, AFL-CIO v. MEK Enterprises et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; granting 7 Motion for Default Judgment in the amount of $69,181.65. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/5/2017. (anh)

1

2

FILED

3

4

DEC 0 5 2017

5
CLERK US DIS I HICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISl f<ICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY
<QI ,V\>'\ DEPUTY

6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

12

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL
89, AFL-CIO,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01614-BEN-NLS

ORDER:

PETITIONER,

(1) GRANTING PETITION TO
CONFIRM ARBITRATION A WARD;
and

v.
MEK ENTERPRISES, a Delaware
Corporation, also known as MEK, also
known as MEK Enterprises, also known
as MEK Contracting, et al.,

18

(2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Respondents.

19
20

Before the Court are the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Request for

21

Entry of Default Judgment filed by Petitioner Laborers' International Union of North

22

America, Local 89, AFL-CIO. (Docket Nos. 1, 7.) Respondents MEK Enterprises and

23

MEK Enterprises GOV, Inc. did not respond to Petitioner's petition or default judgment

24

request, and have not made an appearance in this case. For the reasons that follow,

25

Petitioner's petition and request for default judgment are GRANTED.

26

I.

27
28

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
Federal courts have jurisdiction to vacate or enforce compliance with an arbitration

award for breaches of collective bargaining agreements pursuant to Section 301 of the
I

3:17-cv-01614-BEN-NLS

1 Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. See Kemner v. Dist. Council of
2

Painting & Allied Trades No. 36, 768 F.2d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 1985). In considering

3

whether to confirm an arbitration award, "[t]ederal courts should not review the merits of

4

arbitration awards, but rather should merely determine whether the parties agreed to

5

arbitrate the dispute and to give the arbitrator the power to provide for his award."

6

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Phoenix Mailers Union Local 752, Int'/ Bhd. of Teamsters,

7

989 F.2d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 1993).

8

Here, Petitioner alleges its dispute is governed by a collective bargaining

9

agreement, namely the San Diego Unified School District Project Stabilization

10

Agreement - Construction and Major Rehabilitation Funded by Proposition S ("PSA")

11

and the Master Labor Agreement for Building Construction between the Associated

12

General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. and the Southern California

13

District Council of Laborers for San Diego County ("MLA"), which was incorporated by

14

reference by the PSA. (See Docket No. 1, Pet. at p. 3.) Petitioner further alleges

15

Respondents agreed to be a party to, and bound by, the PSA pursuant to "a series of

16

Letters of Assent." (Id. at pp. 3-5.) According to the PSA, failing resolution through the

17

preliminary grievance process, all disputes regarding "[a]ny questions arising out of and

18

during the term of this Agreement involving its interpretation and application" must be

19

submitted to arbitration. (Id. at p. 5; Docket No. 1-2, Ex. 1 at pp. 22-23.) Petitioner

20

asserts that this dispute arises out of Respondents' violations of the PSA and MLA. (Pet.

21

at pp. 5-6.) Respondent, who bears the burden of demonstrating why the arbitration

22

award should not be confirmed, has not appeared in this action. Accordingly, the Court

23

GRANTS the petition and confirms the Arbitrator's award in Petitioner's favor.

24

II.

Request for Default Judgment

25

Procedurally, Petitioner has met all of the requirements for entry of default

26

judgment. Default was entered as to Respondents on September 19, 2017, for failure to

27

plead or otherwise defend against the Petition. (Docket No. 6.) There is no evidence to

28

indicate that Respondents are infants or incompetent persons, or that the Servicemembers
2

3: l 7-cv-01614-BEN-NLS

1 Civil Relief Act applies. Finally, the notice of the default was served on Respondents.
2

(See Docket No. 5-1, Declaration of Aaron G. Lawrence~ 2.)
Furthermore, the Court finds that the substantive factors set forth in Eitel v.

3
4

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) weigh in favor of granting default judgment.

5

Petitioner will be prejudiced if it has no way of enforcing the arbitration award. The

6

merits and sufficiency of the claims have already been determined by the Arbitrator. The

7

sum is substantial - over $65,000 - and results from Respondents' refusal to pay

8

compensation owed. Respondents have had multiple opportunities to defend themselves

9

and have chosen not to appear. Finally, because entry of default leads to the presumption

10

that Petitioner's allegations are true, and because Respondents have not appeared, there is

11

no dispute as to material facts. In sum, the factors weigh in favor of granting default

12

judgment. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request for entry of default

13

judgment against Respondents.

14

III.

15

Prejudgment Interest
Petitioner seeks prejudgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the period

16

beginning April 17, 2017 (the date the Arbitrator issued its written arbitration award)'

17

through the date this Court enters judgment pursuant to California Civil Code Sections

18

3287 and 3289. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that "[p]re-judgment interest is

19

governed by state law ... and [California] law provides that pre-judgment interest is

20

available from the date the arbitration panel renders its award." Goldman v. Gagnard,

21

No. 11-CV-3028-LHK, 2011WL13177619, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011) (citing

22

Fidelity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 FJd 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004)).

23

California Civil Code Section 3289 sets the statutory rate of prejudgment interest at an

24

annual rate of 10%. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's request for

25

prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,134.50, calculated as follows: on damages in the

26
27
28

1 Docket

No. 1-8, Ex. 7, Arbitration Award.
3

3:17-cv-01614-BEN-NLS

1

amount of$65,047.15 from April 17, 2017 to the present (232 days) at the annual rate of

2 10%.
3

IV.

4

Attorney's Fees
Finally, Petitioner seeks to recover its attorney's fees in the amount of$16,870.

5

"Ordinarily, the prevailing party in a lawsuit does not collect attorney's fees absent

6

contractual or statutory authorization." Sheet Metal Workers' Int 'I Ass 'n Local Union

7

No. 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc. ofArizona, 84 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing

8

Int'! Union ofP.I. W. v. W. Indus. Maint., Inc., 707 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir. 1983).

9

Petitioner implicitly acknowledges that it is not entitled to an attorney's fee award under

10

any contractual or statutory authorization.

11

Instead, it relies on the Ninth Circuit's previous holding that "a court may award

12

fees ifit finds that the losing party 'acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for

13

oppressive reasons."' (Docket No. 7-1, Req. Entry Default J. at p. 7) (citing Sheet Metal

14

Workers, 84 F.3d at 1192) (emphasis added.) The Court has reviewed the documents

15

proffered by Petitioner to support its request for attorney's fees, but finds an absence of

16

evidence that Respondents have "acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for

17

oppressive reasons." 2 Sheet Metal Workers', 84 F.3d at 1192 (quoting Alyeska Pipeline

18

Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc 'y, 421 U.S. 240, 258-59 (1975)). Accordingly, Petitioner's

19

request for attorney's fees is DENIED.

20

CONCLUSION

21

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

23

Petitioner's petition to confirm arbitration award against Respondents
(Docket No. 1) is GRANTED;

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court acknowledges that other courts have found a party has acted acted in bad
faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons by virtue of its failure to comply
with an arbitration award, but declines to make such a finding without any other evidence
demonstrating such conduct.
4
3: l 7-cv-01614-BEN-NLS

1

2.

The Arbitrator's Award (Docket No. 1-8) is confirmed in favor of Petitioner;

2

3.

Petitioner's request for entry of default judgment (Docket No. 7) against
Respondents is GRANTED; and

3

4

4.

Default judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner against Respondents in the

5

amount of$69,181.65, consisting of the $65,047.15 arbitration award and

6

$4,134.50 in prejudgment interest.

7
8

DATED: Decembert:?S:-2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3: l 7-cv-01614-BEN-NLS