Trustees of the Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DC Health and Welfare Fund et al v. WW Reid Masonry, L.L.C.

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/2/2016. (rss, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
U.S. OISTflICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
FOR THE ()JSTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern

CLERK'S OFF'ICF
AT GR[[HB[L(

*
TRUSTEES OF THE BRICKLAYERS
LOCAL I OF 1\11>, AND DC HEALTH
VA
AND WELFARE FUND, et lIf.,

P 12: 2S

lOlb SEP -2

Division

BY

*

._,.r-r""

'j~'(

*
Case No.: G.JII-l :;-3238

Plaintiffs,

*
v.

*
WW REID MASONRY, LLC.,

*
Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to Fcd. R. Civ. P. 55 (b), Bricklaycrs

Local I of MD. VA and DC Hcalth and

Welfare Fund; Trustees of the Marblc, Tile and Terrazzo
Trustees of the Bricklayers
Bricklayers

Local 1 Apprenticcship

and Allied Craftsman

and Training

Local #1 of Maryland

Trades Pension fund ("'11'1'''); International

Masonry

Marble, Tile and Terrazzo

Preservation

Bricklayers

Local 1 of MD, V A and DC Prevailing

("Compliance

Fund") and Bricklayers

("'Local 1") (collectively,
dcclarations

Communication

"Plaintiff's")

Workers Individual

Account

Fund;

fund; Trustees of the

Pension Fundi; Bricklaycrs

Institute ("1M''');

and Trowel

the Masonry. Stonc,

and Productivity

Fund ("CPP Fund"):

Wage and Industry Compliance

Trust Fund

and Allied Craft workers Local # I of i'vID, V A & DC
have filed a Motion for Default Judgment.

and exhibits, against Defendant

WW Reid Masonry

with supporting

LLe. Eel' NO.6. No hearing is

necessary

to resolve the Motion. See Loc, R, 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons that fi.)llO\\'.

Plaintiffs'

Motion is granted.

, Plaintiffs refer to this fund as the "Baltimore Rricklavers Pension Fund" but the attached trust a!!rCCI11~nl refers to
the "Bricklayers and Allied Craftsman Local # I or M;ryland Pension Fund."' ECF No. 6-8.
-

I.

BACKGROUND
Six of the Plaintiffs are multiemployer employee benefit plans as those terms are defined

in the Employee Retirement Ineome Security Aet ("ERISA"). 29 U.S.c.

SS

1002(1). (3). and

(37): Bricklayers Local I of MD. VA and DC Health and Welfare Fund: Trustees of the Marble.
Tile and Terrazzo Workers Individual Account Fund: Trustees of the Bricklaycrs Loeal I
Apprentieeship and Training Fund: Trustees ofthc Bricklayers and Allied Cralisman Local #1 of
Maryland Pension Fund, (hcrcinalier referred to collectively as "Loeal Funds"): 11'1'and IML
ECF No. I

'i~ Thcse
1-3.

Plaintiffs are trustccs of their respective funds. in aeeordance "ith each

fund's trust agreement. and arc fidueiarics as dctincd under ERISA. 29 U.S.c. ~ 1002(21). Id.
Two plaintiffs. thc CI'I' Fund and the Compliance Fund. arc labor-managcment
cooperation committecs as that term is defined in the Tali-Hartley Aet. 29 U.S.c. ~ 186(e)(9).
and the Labor-Managcment

Coopcration Act. 29 U.s.c. ~ 175a. !d

n 4-5. Eaeh fund's

Board of

Trustees is a dcsignated fidueiary in accordance with eaeh fund's respeetive trust agreement. !d
The tina I PlaintifI Local I. is a labor organization as that tcrm is dcfincd in the LaborManagcmcnt Rclations Act ("LMRA"). 29 U.S.c. ~ 152(5)./d';

6.

Dcfendant is a Maryland corporation with offices loeated in Glenwood. Maryland. !d

'i

7. Defendant is an employer in an industry affecting eommerce as defined by ERISA. 29 U.s.c.
~ 1002(5). I I and (12). and the Labor-Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.c. ~ 152(2).1d.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant entcred into a colleetive bargaining agreement "ith Loeal
I, which also bound it to thc agrccmcnts and deelarations of trust establishing the Local Funds.
1M!. 11'1'.the Compliance Fund and the CI'I' Fund (together thc "Benelits Funds"). ECF No. I ~
11. Pursuant to said agreemcnts. Delendant is requircd to submit monthly reports regarding the
hours worked by its cmployccs. /d ~ 13: see also ECF No. 6-3

'i 5. Defendant

is further required

to make monthly contributions to thc Bcnefit Funds along with monthly dues paymcnts to Loeal
2

I based on the number of hours worked by Defendant's

Iti. ,; 14: see also ECF No. 6-

employees.

3'; 6.
According
Defendant
payments

to PlaintilTs. at various times between Novcmber

I) submitted

monthly rcports but failed to makc complctc

to thc Benelit Funds and Local I respectiwly:

make any typc of payment:
No.

I';'; 15-

and 3) made late paymcnts

16. 19-20: see also ECF No. 6-3';~ 7-11.

Pursuant

to the abovc rclercnccd

requircd reports and paymcnts.
reports or payments.

'i~
21.

2

\\hen an employcr

Plaintiffs

'i 27:

allcged that Delendant

thc agrcements

provide for liquidated

damages

at varying intcrest ratcs bascd on thc

in order to dctcrmine

thc accuracy of

to conduct an audit of Defendant's

see also ECF No. 6-3

had "Iail[ed]

requircd and to pay liquidatcd

... in contravention

and Declaration

fails to submit the

'i 14.

initiatcd the present action on October 22. 2015. ECF No. I. In Count I of their

011' as contractually
contributions

to the I3cnclit Funds and Local I. ECF

each calculated

23. Furthermore.

payroll and wage records. ECF No. I

Complaint.

and duc

2) lililed to submit monthly reports or

to the I3cnelit Funds. the trustces arc authorized

Plaintiffs

contributions

thc trustees may estimatc thc amount owcd on the basis of prior

on any late payments.

fund at issue. ECF No. I
contributions

agreemcnts.

ECF No. I ,; 17. In addition.

and interest payments

2013 and January 2016.

damages

of the Local I Collective

of Trust cstablishing

to rcmit contributions

and dues chcck-

and interest for delinqucnt
Bargaining

Agreement.

Agrccmcnts

the various Bcnelit Funds and Sections 502 and 515 of

ERISA [29 U.S.C. ~~ 1132 and 11451." ECF No. I ~ 24. Plaintiffs sought ajudgmcnt

in the

2 Specifically.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant submitted monthly reports but failed to make complete contributions
and dues payments during April 2014. May 2014. July 20 14 - October 20 14 and December 2014. ECF No. 6-3 ~ 7.
For the months of April 2014. May 20 14. October 20 14 - December 20 14. April 20 I5 and May 20 I5 Plaintiffs
received certified copies of payroll statements from Defendant's general contractor regarding work performed but
Defendant did not make any payments. Itl. ~ 8. Defendant also failed to submit monthly rep0l1s or make payments of
any type for additional work during the period of January 2015 - March 2015 and June 2015 - January 2016. It!. at ~~
9. Additionally. Defendant's contributions to the Local Funds for thc months ofNovcmber 2013. Deccmber 2013.
May 20 t4, August 2014 and September 20 14 were paid late. Id. ~ 10.

3

amount 01'$6.591.99

in unpaid contributions

interest assessed on the late contributions.
25(A-B).

PlaintilT additionally

damages

which become due subsequent

judgment...

in liquidated

plus costs and reasonable

requested

attorneys'

relief in the form of "all contributions

damages

and

fecs. ECF No. 1 ~
and liquidated

to the filing of this action through the date of

.. Id. ~ 25(C).

In Count II of their Complaint.
their collective

bargaining

records for January
judgment

and dues. $2.067.23

agreement

by ordering

that the Court enforce the terms of

an audit of Defendant's

1. 2013 through the date of the audit. Id at

against the Defendant

interest. costs. attorneys'

2015. See ECF NO.5-I;

for the sum determined

fees and any expenses

The time for Defendant

Motion for Clerk's

Plaintiffs requested

'i 30(A).

wage and payroll
They further requested

in the audit. plus liquidated

damages.

incurred during the audit. Id '130(B-C).

to respond to Plaintiffs'

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(I)(A)(i).

Complaint

expired on December

On February 26. 2016. Plaintiffs

26.
filed a

Entry of Default. ECF NO.5. and the presently pending Motion for Default

Judgment.

ECF NO.6. An Order of Default was entered by the Clerk of the Court against

Defendant

on March 21. 2016. ECF NO.7.

In Plaintiffs'

Motion for Default Judgment.

the present action. Defendant

has continued

Plaintifn; indicate that. since the initiation of

to fail to submit reports or make contributions

Benefit Funds and Local 1 as required under its collective

bargaining

agreement.

to the

See ECF No. 6-

3 ~9.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A defendant's

judgment:

default does not automatically

rather. that decision

is lefi to the discretion

Sal'Ullnah Shakti ClI/I) .. No. DKC-ll-0438.

(citing Doll' \'. .Iones. 232 F.Supp.2d

entitle the plainti ff to entry of a delault
of the court." Choice Holels IJI/em .. Inc. \'.

2011 WL 5118328 at

491. 494 (D. Md. 2(02).

4

*

2 (D. Md. Oct. 25. 2011 )

Although

"ltJhe Fourth Circuit

has a 'strong policy' that 'cases be decided on their merits:" it!. (citing Uniled Slales \'. Sha/fer
Equip. Co.. 11 F.3d 450. 453 (4th Cir.1993)). "default judgment may be appropriate when the
adversary process has been halted beeause of an essentially unresponsive partylT

!d (citing

s.E.C v. Lawhaugh. 359 F.Supp.2d 418. 421 (D. Md. 20(5».
"Upon default. the well-pled allegations in a complaint as to liability are taken as truc.
although the allegations as to damagcs are not:' S.E.C. ". Lawhaugh. 359 F. Supp. 2d 418. 422
(D. Md. 2005). Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the type of judgment
that may be entered based on a party's default: "A delaultjudgment

must not differ in kind li'om.

or exeeed in amount. what is demanded in the pleadings:' In entering del~llIltjudgnwnt. a court
cannot, therefore. award additional damages "because the defendant could not reasonably have
expected that his damages would exceed th[e 1 amount [plead in the complaint j:' In re Gene.I}".1
Dolo Techs .. Inc.. 204 F.3d 124. 132 (4th Cir. 2000). Where a complaint docs not specify an
amount, •.the eoun is required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded:'
Adkins v. Teseo. 180 F.Supp.2d 15. 17 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing S.E.C.
Ine.. 515 F.2d 801. 814 (2nd Cir. 1975): Au Bon Pain Corp.

1'.

1'.

'\/II/Illgemenl Dynamics.

Arlecl. Inc.. 653 F.2d 61. 65 (2nd

Cir. 1981)). While the Court may hold a hearing to prove damages. it is not required to do so: it
may rely instead on "detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate
sum." Adkins. 180 F.Supp.2d at 17 (citing Uniled Artisls Corp. \'. Freemon. 605 F.2d 854. 857
(5th Cir. 1979)); see also Lahorers' Districl Council Pension. el 01. \'. E.G.S.. Inc.. No. WDQ09-3174,2010

WL 1568595. at *3 (D. Md. Apr.16. 20 I0) (", OJn default judgment. the Co un

may only award damages without a hearing if the record supports the damages requested.").

5

III.

DISCUSSION
A. Liability
1. Count 1: ERISA Claims and Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement
In considering a Motion for Default Judgment. the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded

factual allegations in the Complaint as to liability. but nevertheless "must determine whether
[those] allegations ... support the relief sought in th[cl action:' /n/'I Pain/ers & Allied 7i'ades
Indus. Pension Fund \'. Capilal Res/ora/ion & Pain/in}!.Co.. 919 F. Supp. 2d 680. 685 (D. Md.
2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omittcd). In their Complaint. Plaintiffs allcgc
violations of ERISA. the collective bargaining agrccmcnt and thc undcrlying trust agrccments
together under Count I w'ithout indicating which cause of action relates to cach individual
Plaintiff. ECF No. I ,; 24. Since Plaintiffs allegc that thc Local Funds. \PI' and IMI are
multiemployer benefit funds as detined under ERISA. the Court will interpret claims as to thosc
PlaintitTs as violations of ERISA. In addition. since Plaintiffs allcgc that thc CPP Fund and the
Complianec Funds are labor-managcment coopcration committees. and that Local 1 is a labor
organization. the COUltwill construe thc claims as to thosc Plaintiffs as violations ofthc
collective bargaining agreement undcr LMRA. 29 U.s.c. ~ 185(a). See 7i'us/ees o(/he Plumhers
& Ga.~/illers Local 5 Re/. Sm'. Fund \'. Phenix Plumhing /nc.. No. CY TDC-15-2299. 2016 WL

3461191. at *2 (D. Md. June 21. 2016) (construing allcgations regarding lailurc to pay funds to a
labor management cooperation committee and ducs to a labor organization. as requircd by a
collective bargaining agrccmcnt. as an action lor brcach of a collcctivc bargaining agrecment
under LMRA, 29 U.S.c. ~ 185(a)).
i. ERISA Claims

In the Complaint. the Local Funds. 11'1'and IMI allege that. in contravcntion of their
respective trust agrecments. Dcfendant I) lailcd to make com pietc contributions owcd to thc
6

funds, 2) failed to submit monthly reports or make any type of payment to the funds and 3) made
payments to the funds late in contravention of the requirements of their respective trust
agreements. ECF No. 1

~'i 19-20.
15-16.

ERISA states that "[eJvery employer who is obligated to make contributions to a
multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained
agreement shall. to the extent not inconsistent with law. make such contributions in accordance
with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement:' 19 U.S.c. ~ 1145; see also 19
U.S.c.

S

1131(g) (providing that employers who fail to timely make contributions are liable in a

civil action for. inter alia. unpaid contributions. interest on the unpaid contributions. liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees. and costs of the action). ERISA therefore "'pro\'ide[sl
trustees of multiemployer benefit plans with an elTective federal remedy to collect delinquent
contributions ..•. In/ '1 Pai11lers.919 F. Supp. ld at 685-86 (quoting Lahorers lIealth & Wel/ill'e
Trus/ Fund/i,,' Nor/hem Cal.

1'.

Admnced Ligh/weight Concrete Co.. -IS-I Us. 539.541 (1988».

Thus. assuming the truth of the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint. Plaintifis have
established Defendant's liability for failure to pay the contributions required under the collective
bargaining agreement and trust agreements.
ii. Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement
Similarly. the crr

Fund. the Compliance Fund and Local I e1aim the Defendant

breached their collective bargaining agreement under ~ 301 of the LMRA.19 U.S.c. ~ 185(a).
The LMRA "authorizers] parties to enforce the provisions of their collective bargaining
agreements:'

Trus/ees or/he Na/. Ashes/os Workers Pension Fund \'. Ideallmula/ion

CIV. ELH-II-831.

201 I WL 5151067. at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 17.1(11).

Inc.. No.

The Complain!. taken as

true. establishes that Defendant was obligated by the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement to submit monthly reports regarding the hours worked by its employees and to make
7

monthly contributions
payments

to thc crr

that. in violation

contributions.

employecs.

of the agreement.

bargaining

Defendant

variously

t~liled to make the required

and 1~lilcd to provide the necessary

agreement

and Defendant

Fund and Local 1 for unpaid contributions

per the terms of the collective

ECF No.

attached to the Motion for Del~lUlt .Judgment further

monthly reports.

19-20; see also ECF No. 6-3 ';'17-11. This t~lilure by Defendant

breach of the collective
Compliance

and the Affidavit

made untimely contributions

ECF No. I ';'[15-16,

damages

Fund along "ith monthly dues

to Local 1 based on the number of hours worked by Defendant's

1 ~~ 13-14. The Complaint
establish

Fund and the Compliancc

bargaining

is thus a

is liable to the CPP Fund. the

and dues. along with any additional

agreement.

B. Relief

1. Damages
Plaintiffs
bargaining

now seek damages

agreement

and respective

action to enforce the payment

under ERISA. 29 U.S.c.
trust agreements.

of delinquent

(C) an amount equal to the greater of-til
damages provided
percentage

court under subparagraph

o/7hls/ees

due to an employee

benetit plan. the

(B) interest on the unpaid contributions.

interest on the unpaid contributions.

or (ii) liquidated

for under the plan in an amount not in excess 01'20 percent (or such higher

as may be permitted

by the defendant.

"When a plaintiff prevails in an ERISA

contributions

court shall award the plan: (A) the unpaid contributions.

~ I 132(g)(2). their collective

under Federal or State law) of the amount determined

(A). (D) reasonable

attorney's

and (E) such other legal or equitable

fees and costs of the action. to he paid
relief as the court deems appropriate,"

'!lOl'era/ing Engineers Local 37 Ben. F/lml \'. Fra/ernal Order oj"J,'agles

Cumberland No. 2-15. No. WDQ-09-3123.
2010)(emphasis

20 I0 WL 4806975.

in original).

8

by the

at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 18.

Bd

The Court is, of course, limited in the amount or damages it may award in a del~1U1t
judgment by Rule 54(c). Under that rule, the award may not "diITer in kind Irom. or exceed in
amount, what is demanded in the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(e). Although the damages sought
in PlaintifTs' Motion ror Default Judgment dilTer in dollar amount than those sought in Plaintiffs'
Complaint, this Court recently recognized:
Where a complaint demands a speeilie amount of damages al1ll unspeeilied
additional amounts, ...
so long as a delendant has notice that additional
unspecified damages may be awarded if the case proceeds to judgment general
allegations in the complaint may suffice to support default judgment in an amount
that is proven, either by way of exhibits. al1idavits. and other documentation in
support of a motion for default judgment or at a hearing.
Tr. of the Nat'l AlI/on/atic Sprinkler Indus. lVelfilre Fund

I'.

Ilar\'e)', No. GJH-15-521, 2016 WL

297425, at *5 (D. Md. Jan. 21. 2016) (emphasis in original). Indeed, "the purpose of Rule 54(e)'s
prohibition on damages that 'exeeed in amount" or 'differ in kind' Irom that sought in the
complaint is to allow the defendant to be able to 'decide on the basis or the relierrequested

in the

original pleading whether to expend the time, effort and money necessary to defend the action:"
Id. (quoting 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller. Federal Practice and Procedure ~ 2663
(3d cd. 1998». Thus. Rule 56(e) "docs not preclude an award of damages that accrued during the
pendency of the action Iwhere] such damages were explicitly requested in the complaint and
sufficiently established by the al1idavits submitted by plaintiffs." Id. (quoting Ill11es". S7~IT Fire
Suppression. Inc.. 227 F.R.D. 361. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2005». In those circumstances, a delendant is
"put on notice that [the] plaintiff was seeking sueh damages when delendant was served "ith the
complaint" and "[t]hat notiee was renewed when defendant was served with [the plaintitrs]
motion for default judgment .... " Id. (quoting Allies, 227 F.R. D. at 362).
Here. Plaintiffs now seek judgment against Defendant in an amount totaling $76,950.65.
broken down as follows: $62.224.48 in contributions owed I(lr the period between April 2014
9

and January 2016 (ECF No. 6-3 '1~7-9): $11.833.91
contributions

for the period between November

in liquidated

damages

2013 and December

assessed on late

2015. computed

rates per the terms of the respective

trust agreements

and $2.892.27

at varying rates per the terms of the respective

agreements

in interest computed

but not exceeding

contributions

and $1.938.13

in liquidated

damages

and liquidated

in the Complaint.

damages

tiling of this action through the date of judgment.
fees, pursuant to the various Agreements
accordingly.

..[tlhe damages

damages

provision.

in amount'

Garvin. President

and underlying

~ I 132(g)'" !d

when they were

on February 26. 2016. ECF No. 6-

notwithstanding

do

rather under the

request in their Motion are preciscly the

that the total amount of those damages
II(//TCY.

has

2016 WI. 297425. at *6.

and dues owed under the collective

trust agreements.

Plaintiffs submit the declaration

of Scott

of Local I and Trustee of several of the Plaintiff Benefit Funds. ECF No. 6-3.

Garvin attests that Defendant
payments

attorneys'

in their Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiffs

since the time this action was initiated'"

agreement

to the

also received

that plead lor in the Complaint:

In support of their request lor contributions
bargaining

'i 25 (A-B).

\vas filed that failure to

would include. Defendant

sought by Plaintiffs

the damages

in unpaid

in excess of the specific dollar figure stated in the

Motion for Default Judgment

plead lor in the Complaint.

increased

of Trust and 29 U.S.c.

had notice at the time the Complaint

not 'differ in kind' [lrom] or 'exeeed
plain language oftha!

ECI' No. I

Plaintiffs sought to recover in default judgment

served with copies of Plaintiffs'
17. Accordingly,

$6.591.99

plus costs. interest. and reasonable

and had notice as to what those damages

notice of the speeitie amounts

trust

"which become due subsequent

and Declarations

defend the action could result in a judgment
Complaint

20% (lOCI' No. 6-3~; 13):

18% (ld.). While Plaintiffs only demanded

they also sought contributions

~ 25(C). Defendant.

but not exceeding

at varying

has failed to make the vast majority of the required

for the period between April 2014 and January 2016. ECF No. 6-3 ~1'17-9. Garvin also
10

states that for a portion of that time Defendant has failed to submit reports regarding the number
of hours that Defendant's employees worked. It!. ~ 9. Accordingly. the projected amount of
Defendant's delinquency for the hours worked by covered employees totals $36.239.67. !d.
Garvin further attests that for a portion of the time, Plaintiffs received copies of certi lied payroll
for work performed and that. pursuant to the certified payroll received. Defendant O\\es
$22,036.29. !d. ~ 8. Finally. Garvin indicates that Defendant's contributions and dues i()r the
majority of the months between November 2013 and December 2015 were paid late and thus
Defendant owes $11,833.91 in liquidated damages, calculated at different rates per the respective
trust agreements. It!.

'i~ 1. Garvin's
10-1

calculations arc also documented in a spreadsheet

specifying all of Defendant's unpaid and late contributions. ECF No. 6-13 ("Exhibit K"). The
record therefore substantiates Plaintiffs' request I()r unpaid contributions and liquidated
damages.
Plaintiffs also seck $2.892.27 in interest computed at varying rates per the terms of the
respective trust agreements. ECl' No. 6-3

'i'i 12-13: ECF No. 6-13. The interest is o,,'ed pursuant

to 29 U.S.c. ~ 1132(g) and the trust agreements. The figures in Exhibit K correspond "ith the
amount requested in the motion for default judgment and are otherwise supported by the record.
ECF No. 6-3.
2. Attorney's

Fees lind Costs

Attorney's ICes and costs are available under ERISA. 29 USC ~ 1132(g)(2)(D). and under
the collective bargaining agreement. ECl' NO.6-I at 33 In support of their e1aim I()r attorneys'
ICes and costs, Plaintiffs submit the declaration of their attorney. Charles \\'. Gilligan, ECF No.
6-14, a spreadsheet specifying the hourly billing by Gilligan and his paralegal with respect to the

:; Pin cites to documents
by that system.

filed on the Court"s electronic

filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated

11

instant lawsuit, ECF No. 6-15. and invoices for costs spcnt on process service. ECF No. 6-16.
These materials indicate that Gilligan's lirm spent eighteen and a half hours on this case on
behalf of Plaintiffs, at a rate 01'$130 per hour for paralegal time and $230 per hour for attorney
time. ECF NO.6-14 ~~ 3. 5: see also ECF No. 6-15. Gilligan further attests that he has been a
member of this Court for almost 30 years. ECF No. 6-14 ~ I. These rates arc certainly lilir
considering the local guidelines. which note that a reasonable rate for lawyers admitted to the bar
twenty or more years is between $300 and $475 a hour. and are reasonable given the multiple
Plaintiffs in the case. See Local Rule ApI'. B (D. Md. 1016). Plaintiffs arc thereltJre awarded
$2,805.00 in attorneys' fees.
The record also substantiates the following expenses: $95 It)r service of process and $400
for filing fees. IOCr:Nos. 6-14, 6-16. Thus, Plaintiffs are awarded $495.00 in costs.
3. Injunctive Relief
In Count II of their Complaint. Plaintiffs request that the Court enforce the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement and trust agreements by ordering Defendant to permit a
complete audit of their wage and payroll records for the period of January I. 1013 through the
date of the audit. IOCr:No. 1 ~ 30(A). Plaintiffs also request that the Court issue judgment against
the Defendant for any amount determined owed by the audit. including any liquidated damages.
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and issue judgment against the Defendant for all expenses.
including accountant's fees. related to the audit. lOCI'No. I ~ 30(B-C).
In conjunction with a default judgment regarding the enft)rcement of a collecti,'e
bargaining agreement. the Court may also order injunctive relief. See Tms/ees of/he Na/.
Ashes/os Workers Pension Fllnd

t •.

Ideallnsllia/ion

Inc,.

j

o. CIV. ELH-II-831.

10 I I WL

5151067. at *4-5 (D. Md. Oct. 27. 20 II )(citations omitted). Pursuant to the collective bargaining
agreement, the trustees have the authority to conduct an audit for the purposes of determining the
11

accuracy of the contributions to the funds. ECF NO.1

'i 27: see a/so ECF No. 6-3';

14. Injunctive

relief in the form of compelling an audit is permissible in ERISA and LMRA actions. See
Trustees of Ihe Not. Asbeslos Workers PellSion Fund \'. Idea/lnsu/ation

Inc.. No. CI V. ELlI-1 1-

832,2011 WI. 5151067. at *6 (D. Md. Oct. 27. 2011)(ordering Defendant to allow Plaintilrs
auditor to conduct an audit and produce any record requested by PlaintiIrs auditor). Therefore.
Defendant is ordered to allow Plaintiffs auditors to conduct an audit going bacK to January 1.
2013, and to pay all contributions shown to be due. upon aflidavit from the Plainti IIas long as
such amounts are not duplicative of the amounts already granted in this order. Defendant is also
ordered to pay all expenses. including accountant's fees. associated with the audit. per its
collective bargaining agreement.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs' ivlotion for Delilliit Judgment. ECF NO.6. is

GRANTED. Judgment will be entered in liwor of Plainti ffs in the amount of $80.250.66 as
follows: $62,224.48 in contributions and dues owed: $11.833.91 in liquidated damages:
$2.892.27 in interest assesscd at interest ratcs ranging hetween 6% and 18% per the terms of the
respective trust agrcemcnts: $2.805.00 in attorneys' fees and $495.00 in costs. Defcndant is
ordered to allow Plaintiff-s auditors to conduct an audit going hacK to January I. 2013. and to
pay all contributions shown to be due. upon aflidavit Irom the Plaintiff: as long as such amounts
are not duplicativc of the amounts already granted in this order. plus liquidated damages and
interest assessed Irom the date of delinquency though the datc of paymcnt.

13

Defendant is also ordered to pay all expenses. including accountant's fccs. associatcd
with the audit. per its collective bargaining agreement. A separate Order follows.

Dated: September~

h/0-

20 16

GEORGE JOHAiEL

Unitcd Statcs District Judge

14