Trustees of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund et al v. Utley Mechanical, Inc.
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/21/2013. (c/m 5/22/2013 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND
GASFITTERS LOCAL 5 RETIREMENT
SAVINGS FUND, et al.
:
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 11-2610
:
UTLEY MECHANICAL, INC.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action
arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (“ERISA”) is a supplemental motion for default judgment
filed by Plaintiffs, the trustees of the Plumbers and Gasfitters
Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
Apprenticeship
Productivity
Fund,
Fund,
Vacation
Industry
Fund,
Fund,
Communication
and
Medical
and
Fund
(collectively, “the Local 5 Funds”), and the trustees of the
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and International
Trading Fund (together, “the National Pension Funds”).
18).
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to seal two exhibits
submitted in support of their supplemental motion.
19).
(ECF No.
(ECF No.
The relevant issues have been briefed and the court now
rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed
necessary.
For the reasons that follow, the supplemental motion
for default judgment will be granted and the motion to seal will
be granted in part and denied in part.
I.
Background
On November 26, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and order granting in part and denying in part an initial motion
for default judgment filed by the trustees for the Local 5 Funds
and the National Pension Funds (together, “the Funds”) and the
Plumbers Local Union No. 5 (“the Union”).
See Trustees of the
Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund, et al.
v.
Utility
Mechanical,
Inc.,
Civ.
5928691 (D.Md. Nov. 26, 2012).1
No.
DKC-11-2610,
2012
WL
After finding that Plaintiffs
had established liability, the court explained that essentially
five categories of relief were sought: (1) amounts due to the
Funds related to Defendant’s breach of a settlement agreement;
(2)
amounts
due
to
the
Funds
for
unpaid
contributions,
liquidated damages, and interest from January 2011 to February
2012; (3) unpaid working assessments and dues owed to the Union;
(4) attorneys’ fees and costs; and (5) injunctive relief in the
form of an audit of Defendant’s records.
As to the last three categories, Plaintiffs demonstrated
entitlement to relief.
Specifically, the court found they were
entitled to union dues in the amount of $11,957.77, attorneys’
1
The caption of the prior opinion incorrectly named
Defendant as “Utility Mechanical, Inc.”
The proper name, as
noted in the body of the opinion, is “Utley Mechanical, Inc.”
2
fees in the amount of $1,603.75, costs totaling $485.00, and an
order requiring Defendant to submit to an audit of its records
for the period from January 2008 to the date of judgment.
It
was further determined that the declaration submitted in support
of the amounts sought by the National Pension Funds for unpaid
contributions,
liquidated
damages,
and
interest
from
January
2011 to February 2012 established entitlement to a total amount
of $80,803.85.
The court was unable, however, to “prove up” the
damages
by
sought
the
Funds
with
respect
to
breach
of
the
settlement agreement or the damages sought by the Local 5 Funds
for unpaid contributions from January 2011 to February 2012.
to
those
amounts,
the
Funds
were
permitted
to
As
file
a
supplemental motion for default judgment within fourteen days.
On December 10, 2012, the Funds filed additional motion
papers, seeking a “supplemental amount of $353,229.40.”
No. 18, at 1).2
(ECF
The following day, they filed a motion to seal
2
This amount is sought in addition to the amount the court
previously found Plaintiffs were entitled.
It is not true, as
the Funds suggest, that the court “previously entered a partial
default judgment in the amount of $94,850.37.” (ECF No. 18, at
1). Rather, it merely found that Plaintiffs were “entitled” to
a judgment in that amount. (ECF No. 17 ¶ 2). No judgment has
yet been entered.
3
two exhibits submitted in support of the supplemental motion.
(ECF Nos. 19-22).3
II.
No opposition papers have been filed.
Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment
A.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) limits the type of
judgment that may be entered based on a party’s default: “A
default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in
amount,
what
is
demanded
in
the
pleadings.”
Thus,
where
a
complaint specifies the amount of damages sought, the plaintiff
is
limited
to
entry
of
a
default
judgment
in
that
amount.
“[C]ourts have generally held that a default judgment cannot
award additional damages . . . because the defendant could not
reasonably
amount.”
have
expected
his
damages
exceed
that
“the
court
Where a complaint does not specify an
is
required
to
determination of the sum to be awarded.”
F.Supp.2d
would
In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 204 F.3d 124,
132 (4th Cir. 2000).
amount,
that
15,
17
(D.D.C.
2001)
(citing
make
an
independent
Adkins v. Teseo, 180
S.E.C.
v.
Management
Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2nd Cir. 1975); Au Bon Pain
Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2nd Cir. 1981)).
While
the court may hold a hearing to consider evidence as to damages,
it is not required to do so; it may rely instead on “detailed
3
They separately filed a “line to seal” (ECF No. 19); the
two exhibits, under seal (ECF Nos. 20, 21); and a certificate of
service (ECF No. 22).
4
affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate
sum.”
v.
Adkins, 180 F.Supp.2d at 17 (citing United Artists Corp.
Freeman,
605
F.2d
854,
(5th
857
Cir.
1979));
see
also
Laborers’ District Council Pension, et al. v. E.G.S., Inc., Civ.
No. WDQ–09–3174, 2010 WL 1568595, at *3 (D.Md. Apr. 16, 2010)
(“[O]n
default
without
a
judgment,
hearing
if
the
Court
may
the
record
only
award
damages
the
damages
supports
requested.”).
B.
Breach of the Settlement Agreement
The Funds allege damages totaling $199,365.18 related to
Defendant’s breach of the settlement agreement.
In support of
this amount, they submit the supplemental declaration of James
E. Killeen, III, the trustee of the Local 5 Funds, along with a
copy of the settlement agreement and a spreadsheet demonstrating
payments
made
Defendant
settlement
owed
a
Defendant.
total
and
This
evidence
reflects
that
amount
of
$270,811.89
under
consisting
agreement,
contributions
interest.
by
of
$196,966.30
in
$63,743.24
in
liquidated
the
unpaid
damages,
plus
The parties agreed that the Funds would consider
waiving the liquidated damages amount if Defendant made timely
payments, and the payment schedule was based on a principal
amount
of
Defendant
$206,468.64
made
seven
(i.e.,
payments,
$270,811.89
totaling
stopped making payments altogether.
5
-
$63,743.24).
$81,933.79,
but
then
Thus, under the reduced
principal amount, Defendant owes a total of $124,534.85 (i.e.,
$206,468.64 - $81,933.79).
Adding in the original liquidated
damages amount of $63,743.24 and interest totaling $11,087.09,
Plaintiffs have established entitlement to a total amount of
$199,365.18.
C.
Contributions from January 2011 to February 2012
The evidence further supports an award of $153,864.21 to
the Local 5 Funds for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages,
and
interest
Killeen’s
owed
from
declaration
January
2011
demonstrates
to
February
that,
2012.
pursuant
to
Mr.
its
obligations under the collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”),
Defendant submitted contribution reports identifying the number
of hours worked by covered employees and the amounts owed during
this period.
An attached exhibit shows that Defendant failed to
make payments for certain months and made untimely payments for
others.
Under the CBAs, the Local 5 Funds are entitled to
recover all unpaid contributions; liquidated damages of twenty
percent of any unpaid or untimely contributions; and interest
accruing at the rate of ten percent per annum.
submitted
by
the
Local
5
Funds
shows
that
The evidence
Defendant
owes
contributions in the amount of $123,666.76, liquidated damages
of $22,080.26, and interest totaling $8,117.19.
The Local 5
Funds are, therefore, entitled to a default judgment in the
6
total amount of $153,864.21 related to unpaid contributions from
January 2011 to February 2012.
III. Motion to Seal
The Funds have also filed a motion to seal certain exhibits
offered
in
judgment.
support
of
their
supplemental
motion
for
default
Generally, a motion to seal must comply with Local
Rule 105.11, which provides, in relevant part:
Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings,
motions, exhibits or other papers to be
filed in the Court record shall include (a)
proposed
reasons
supported
by
specific
factual
representations
to
justify
the
sealing
and
(b)
an
explanation
why
alternatives to sealing would not provide
sufficient protections
This rule endeavors to protect the common law right to inspect
and
copy
judicial
Communications,
recognizing
that
records
Inc.,
435
competing
and
U.S.
documents,
589,
interests
Nixon
sometimes
Warner
(1978),
597
v.
while
outweigh
the
public’s right of access, In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231,
235 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Funds have not advanced any argument in support of
their motion to seal; rather, they merely filed a “line to seal”
that was improperly docketed as a motion.
the
documents
in
question
is
Moreover, neither of
necessary
supplementary motion for default judgment.
to
resolve
the
Nevertheless, one of
the documents, a contribution report dated January 1, 2011 (ECF
7
No.
18-6),
employees,
contains
although
the
the
social
same
security
document
is
numbers
separately
with this information redacted (ECF No. 21).
protecting
the
privacy
of
these
of
certain
docketed
In the interest of
individuals,
the
unredacted
version of this document will be placed under seal.
In all
other respects, however, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ supplemental motion
for default judgment will be granted and their motion to seal
will be denied.
A separate order will follow.
________/s/__________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
8
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?