National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Coastal Electric & Environmental Services, Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER amending JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs against Coastal Electric & Environmental Services, Inc. to include an additional award of liquidated damages in the amount of$1.125.95 for NEBF' and $5.792.06 for NEAP. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/18/2016. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

I S ;'1-

~.:,
T

IN TilE UNITED STATES J)(STlUCT COljRT
FOR THE J)(STRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern

P 2: I C]

:"'b ["

Division

*
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL BENEFIT
FUND ef III.,

YL/:"

C'

r

*

Plaintiffs,

*
Case No.: G,JII-IS-1698

*
COASTAL ELECTRIC &
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.,

*
*

Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending bell)re the Court is National Electrical Ilenefit Fund's (""NEBF") and National
Electrical Annuity Plan's ("NEAP")

(collectively.

ECF No. 13. A hcaring is unnecessary.
Plaintiffs'

"Plaintiffs").

Motion to Amcnd Judgmcnt.

Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the fl)llowing reasons.

Motion is granted.

In its Mcmorandum

Opinion regarding Plaintiffs'

Court flHlIld Defendant Coastal Electric & Environmental
submit contributions

Motion for Def~lult Judgment.

Services. Inc. liable fll!' its 1~lilure to

to NEBI' and NEAP that it was "legally and contractually

makc:' NlIl'l Ul!c. Hl!lIl!fit FI/lld

I'.

this

COllsllll 1,ll!c. & EII\'II. Sal'S .. IlIc..

obligated to

No. GJ 11-15-169X. 2016

WL 3221523. at *3 (D. Md. June 7. 2(16).
PlaintilTNEBF
contributions:

was thercflll'c awarded. in relevant part. "$5.629.74 in delinquent

interest in the amount of $1.564.70: attorney's tees and costs in the amount of

$2.X03.57: audit fees in the amount 01'$292.41: and. any additional
NEill' in connection

with the enfl)rcement

ofajudgment:

fees and costs incurred by

interest on all amounts awarded: and.

post-judgmcnt

intercst until paid'" Id at 4. Similarly.

part. "$28.960.28

in delinquent

contributions:

and costs in thc amount 01'$2.803.57:
conncction

with the cnforcemcnt

Plaintiff NEAP was awardcd.

intcrcst inthc amount 01'$7.670.32:

and. any additional

of a judgment:

intercstuntil

additional

awards of liquidatcd

damagcs

attorncy's

ICcs

fecs and costs incurrcd by INEApj

intercst on all amounts

awardcd:

paid." Id Now. in their Motion to Amcnd Judgmcnt

judgmcnt

in relevant

in

and. post-

Plaintiffs

rcquest

in thc amount 01'$ 1.125.95 li'r NEBI' and $5.792.06

lilr

NEAP. lOCI' No. 13 ~ 8.
Rulc 59(c} allows a party to filc a motion to altcr or amcnd ajudgment
days alier the entry of thc judgment

The Fourth Circuit has recognized

court may alter or amend an earlicr judgment:
controlling

law: (2) to account

error of law or prcvent manifest

,,( I) to accommodate

lilr new evidence
injustice'"

not available

no latcr than 28

three grounds on which a

an intervcning

changc in

at trial: or (3) to corrcct a e1car

United States ex rei. /Jecker \'. /Vesting/lOuse

Sl/\'l/Illwh Riwr Co .. 305 F,3d 284. 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing PaL'. Ins. Co. \'. Alii. Nat'/ Fire
Ins. Co.. 148 F.3d 396. 403 (4th Cir. 1998». Plaintiffs e1aim here that the Court prcviously
an error of law. Plaintiffs

are correct.

In an action to enlillTe the payment of delinquent

*

1132(g). a successful

made

contributions

under ERISA. 29 U.S.c.

Plaintiff shall be awarded:

(A) thc unpaid contributions.
(B) intcrest on thc unpaid contributions.
(C) an amount cqualto

the greatcr 01'--

(i) intercst on thc unpaid contributions.
(ii) liquidated

damagcs

not in cxccss of20

provided

or

for undcr thc plan in an amount

perccnt (or such highcr perccntage

2

as may bc

permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined
the court under subparagraph
(D) reasonable attorney's
delendant.

(A).

Ices and costs of the action. to be paid by the

and

(E) such other legal or equitable reliefas
29

U.s.c. ~ 1132(g)(2).

hy

the court deems appropriate.

Generally speaking. the lirst two categories of relief are similar to

damages awarded in a breach of contract case. which seek to put the injured party in "as good a
position as he would have been in had the contract been perllH"111ed:' by awarding the Plaintiff
unpaid contributions
Contracts

and any interest that would have accrued on them. Restatement

(Second) of

~ 344 em!. a (Am. Law Ins!. 1981). The third category seeks to deter the Dclendant

from making delinquent

contributions

intcrest on the unpaid contributions

in the future by ordering an "dditioll,,1 award of either the
or liquidated damages not in excess of 20 percent. whichever

amount is greater. See VerJ1l/lII'. BOll'ell Ellterprisl!s.

Ille ..

648 F. Supp. 721. 724-25 (W.D. 1''1.

1986)( noting both the deterrent purpose of the provision and that the elements are "phrased in
the disjunctive:').

In its prior opinion. the Court contlated the categories of relief: awarding

Plaintiffs only enough to put them in as good a position as they would have been in had the
Delendant

paid its required contributions.

but failed to award the third category of additional.

deterrent relief:
Plaintiffs are therefore correct that they are owed additional damages.
Motion to Amend Judgment and their Amended Complaint.
liquidated damages Ill!' NEBI' and $5.792.06

In both their

Plaintiffs request $1.125.95

in

in liquidated damages l'or NEAP. lOCI' NO.4 '134:

lOCI' No. 13 'i 8. The Court notes that this is less than they would be entitled to under ERISA
since the amounts of interest on the unpaid contributions

3

Il)r NEBI' and NEAP. $1.329.90 and

$6.4 74.80 respectively. arc greater than the amounts of liquidated damages. $1.125.95 and
$5.792.06. owed to each fund. 29 U.S.c.

* 1132(g)(2)(C). The Court assumes that Plaintiffs are

requesting the lesser amounts under the belief that they were limited by the language in their
trust agreements. The NEBF and NEAP trust agreements both discuss a liquidated damages
award of"up to twenty percent (20%) of the amount f(lUnd to be delinquent:'

ECF No. 9-4 at 2:

ECF No. 9-6 at 2.1 but neither agreement references an alternate award of additional interest. The
Court will not opine on whether the contracts could limit recovery otherwise available under
ERISA. but notes that the Court is limited in the amount of damages it may award in a delilllit
judgment by Rule 54(c). Under that rule. the award may not "differ in kind from. or exceed in
amount. what is demanded in the pleadings:' Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Thus. since Plaintiffs only
sought liquidated damages in the amount of$1.125.95

for NEBI' and $5.792.06 for NEAl' in

their Amended Complaint. they would not be entitled to receive an award that would exceed that
amount. ECF No.4'i

34.

In accordance with the f(lregoing. it is hereby ORDERED that I'laintifis' Motion to
Amend Judgment. ECF No. 13. is GRANTED.
The Order. ECF No. 12. is thus modi lied to include an additional award of liquidatcd
damages in the amount of$1.125.95

Date: October

for NEBI' and $5.792.06 for NEAl'.

&/A-

If 2016

•

GEORGE J. I lAZE!.
United States District Judge

1 Pin cites to documents liIea on the Court"s electronic liIing system (CM/ECF)
by that system.

4

refer

10

the page numbers generated