Trustees of the Electrical Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Third Generation Electric, LLC
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 46 Motion for Default Judgment; JUDGMENT entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $467,850.63 against Third Generation Electric, LLC; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 1/8/2021. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
TRUSTEES OF THE ELECTRICAL
WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
*
THIRD GENERATION ELECTRIC, LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. PX-18-0051
*
*
*
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Electrical Welfare Trust Fund (“Welfare Fund”); the Electrical Workers Local No.
26 (“Local 26”) Pension Trust Fund (“Pension Fund”); the Local No. 26 Joint Apprenticeship
and Training Trust Fund (“Apprenticeship Fund”); the Local No. 26 Individual Account Fund
(“Individual Account Fund”); the National Electrical Benefit Fund (“NEBF”) (collectively the
“Funds”); the National Electrical Contractors Association, Washington D.C. Chapter (“NECA”);
the National and Local Labor Management Cooperation Committees (“NLMCC” and “LMCC”);
and their respective trustees and collection agents (collectively with the Funds, the “Plaintiffs”),
bring this action against Defendant Third Generation Electric, LLC (“Third Generation”) under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§
1001 et seq. (1982), and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1948
(“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Now pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for default
judgment. ECF No. 46. Defendant Third Generation has not filed a response, and the time for
doing so has passed. See Loc. R. 105.2.a. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for
default judgment is GRANTED.
1
I.
Background
The Funds are multi-employer plans as that term is defined under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §
1002(3). See ECF No. 16 ¶ 4. They were established and are maintained as the result of
collective bargaining pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) and (6) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)
and (6). Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff Local 26 is a local union of electrical workers covering Washington,
D.C., and parts of Maryland and Virginia. ECF No. 46-1 ¶ 2. Plaintiffs NLMCC and LLMCC
were established pursuant to the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 to improve the
relationship between signatory employers and IBEW local unions. Id. ¶ 3. NECA is a national
trade association that serves as a collective bargaining representative for electrical contractors
such as Defendant Third Generation, a Maryland limited liability corporation and an employer
within the meaning of LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 152(2), and ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5). ECF No.
16 ¶ 4.
As a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Local 26 and NECA,
Third Generation was bound to the terms and conditions of the Agreements and Declarations of
Trust (“Trust Agreements”) establishing the Funds. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9-10; ECF No. 46-1 ¶ 5; ECF No.
46-4 at 9. Per the terms of the CBA and Trust Agreements, Third Generation agreed to make
monthly contributions to the Plaintiff Funds, NECA, 1 NLMCC, and LLMCC at specified rates, 2
and to provide Plaintiffs with monthly contribution reports listing the name of each person
employed pursuant to the CBA and the number of compensable hours of wages paid to each such
person during that month. ECF No. 16 ¶¶ 10-11; ECF No. 46-4 at 38-39, 43-50. The Trust
1
Third Generation’s contribution obligation to NECA under the CBA is described in Article XI as contributions due
to the “Industry Fund.” ECF No. 46-1 at 4 n.2; ECF No. 46-4 at 45.
2
The Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Individual Account Fund and Apprentice Fund have each adopted an interest
rate on all delinquent contributions at the rate of 0.019% per day. ECF No. 46-1 ¶ 8. The NEBF has adopted an
interest rate of 10% per annum. Id.
2
Agreements also authorized Plaintiff Trustees to inspect and audit Third Generation’s payroll
records to ensure Third Generation adhered to its contractual obligations. ECF No. 16 ¶ 12; ECF
No. 46-4 ¶ 18. For any delinquent payments, Third Generation agreed to pay interest, calculated
from the due date of each delinquent contribution to the date it was actually paid; liquidated
damages, assessed in an amount equal to the greater of 20% of each delinquent monthly
contribution or $50.00 per month; and any attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the Trustees in
collecting delinquent contributions. ECF No. 16 ¶ 11; see also ECF No. 46-4 at 58, 75-77, 10508, 136-39, 173-77, 222-23.
After conducting payroll audits for 2016, 2017, and 2018, Plaintiffs’ auditor determined
that Third Generation had failed to properly report and pay contributions totaling $350,779.37,
specifically: $179,455.36 owed to the Welfare Fund, $87,658.45 owed to the Pension Fund,
$16,497 owed to the Apprenticeship Fund, $64,526.15 owed to the Individual Account Fund,
$240 owed to the LLMCC, and $2,401.58 owed to NECA. ECF No. 16 ¶ 12; ECF No. 46-4 ¶
19; id. at 229. Plaintiffs also claim that Third Generation failed to submit timely contribution
payments totaling $7,758.09 for work performed during the months of August, September and
October 2017. ECF No. 16 ¶ 13; ECF No. 46-1 ¶ 9.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have brought suit against Third Generation under sections
502(g)(2) and 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1145, and section 301(a) of LMRA,
29 U.S.C. § 185(a), in an effort to collect the delinquent contributions, audit amounts, interest,
liquidated damages owed, and attorney’s fees and costs. ECF No. 16. Third Generation ceased
participating in this lawsuit as of August 2019, prompting the Clerk’s Office to enter default
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) on Mach 9, 2020. ECF No. 44. On April 15,
2020, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for default judgment. ECF No. 46.
3
II.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default judgments which must be entered
“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or
otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
The Court may enter default judgment at the plaintiff’s request and with notice to the defaulting
party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Although courts maintain “a strong policy that cases be decided
on the merits,” United States v. Schaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993), the Court
may exercise its discretion in granting default judgment when the “adversary process has been
halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” S.E.C. v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418,
421 (D. Md. 2005).
When considering whether to grant default judgment, the Court takes as true all wellpleaded factual allegations in the complaint, other than those pertaining to damages. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(b)(6); Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The
defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on
those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
If the complaint avers sufficient facts from which the court may find liability, the Court
next turns to damages. See Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780–81. Damages are circumscribed by that
which is requested in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A default judgment must not
differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”). The damages
requested must be supported by evidence introduced either at a hearing or by affidavit or other
records. See id.; Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 422.
4
III.
Analysis 3
ERISA requires that “[e]very 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.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145: see also 29
U.S.C. § 1132(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 “‘provide[s]
trustees of multiemployer benefit plans with an effective federal remedy to collect delinquent
contributions.’” Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Capital Restoration &
Painting Co., 919 F. Supp. 2d 680, 685–86 (D. Md. 2013) (quoting Laborers Health & Welfare
Trust Fund for Northern Cal. v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539, 541 (1988));
see also Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund v. Ralph’s Grocery Co.,
118 F.3d 1018, 1020–21 (4th Cir. 1997). The LMRA also provides a separate basis for “parties
to enforce the provisions of their collective bargaining agreements.” 4 Trs. of the Nat’l Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund v. Ideal Insulation Inc., No. ELH-11-832, 2011 WL 5151067, at *3 (D.
Md. Oct. 27, 2011).
3
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Sections 502 and 515
of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145, and Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Venue is proper under 29
U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(2), 1451(d), as the Plaintiff Funds are administered in this district. ECF No. 16 ¶ 3; see Trustees
of Nat. Automatic Sprinkler Indus. Pension Fund v. Best Automatic Fire Prot., Inc., 578 F. Supp. 94, 95 (D. Md.
1983).
4
NECA, NLMCC, and LLMCC are not multiemployer plans but are third-party beneficiaries with standing “to
bring an action to enforce [the CBA and Trust Agreements’] terms and seek remedies for [their] breach” under
LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 & Iron Workers Emps. Assoc. Emp.
Pension Trust v. Facade Install Operating Co., D.C., Inc., No. GJH-18-1857, 2020 WL 949961, at *5 (D. Md. Feb.
27, 2020) (quotation omitted).
5
Taking the well-pleaded facts of the Complaint as true, Plaintiffs have established that
Third Generation was required to make contributions under the CBA and Trust Agreements.
ECF No. 16 ¶¶ 10-15. Plaintiffs have also established that Third Generation failed to make such
contributions, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1145 and 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Id. Default judgment as
to liability is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are entitled by statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), and by the terms of the CBA and
Trust Agreements, to recover in damages the delinquent contributions, interest on unpaid
contributions; liquidated damages generally not to exceed twenty percent of the delinquent
contributions; and attorney’s fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g); ECF No. 46-4 ¶ 13.
However, any damages award must be properly supported by record evidence and consistent
with those described in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) & 54(c).
Plaintiffs assert damages of $7,758.09 in delinquent contributions; $350,779.37 in audit
amounts; $4,812.28 in interest, calculated through March 27, 2020; and $69,370.89 in liquidated
damages. 5 ECF No. 46-4 ¶ 20. In support of this award, Plaintiffs submit the sworn affidavit of
Michael McCarron (“McCarron”), the Fund Administrator of the Plaintiffs Welfare Fund,
Pension Fund, Individual Account Fund, and LLMCC. ECF No. 46-4. Plaintiffs have also
provided a spreadsheet itemizing the amounts owed. Id. at 229. These damages are adequately
supported and are consistent with those described in the Complaint. ECF No. 16. The Court will
therefore award the delinquent contributions, audit amounts, interest, and liquidated damages.
As to Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court assesses the
reasonableness of the requested amounts by considering Appendix B to this Court’s Local Rules
5
As to Local Union No. 26 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Amended Complaint seeks
damages for any unpaid union dues that are unpaid prior to a judgment. However, Plaintiffs concede that Third
Generation does not owe any such dues. ECF No. 46-1 at 1 n.1.
6
and the following factors: the professional time and labor invested, the novelty and difficulty of
the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; the
likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the lawyer’s acceptance of the particular engagement
will preclude other employment; the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal
services; the amount in controversy and the results obtained; the time limitations imposed by the
client or by the circumstances; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client; the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services;
and whether the fee is fixed or contingent. See Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d
235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009); Loc. R. 3, Appendix B.
Both current and former Plaintiffs’ counsel seek attorneys’ fees. ECF Nos. 46-2 & 46-3.
Plaintiffs were first represented by Charles Fuller and Johanna Montero-Okon, of the law firm
McChesney & Dale, P.C. ECF No. 46-3 ¶¶ 1-3. Fuller has practiced law for more than 30 years,
and Montero-Okon has practiced since 2010. Id. The attorneys’ hourly rates for the period
during which they represented Plaintiffs were $260 in 2016, $275 in 2017, $290 in 2018, and
$300 in 2019. Id. ¶ 7. These rates fall within the guidelines of the Local Rules for both
practitioners and are presumptively reasonable. See Loc. R. 3, Appendix B.
Fuller attests that he and Montero-Okon collectively spent 71.2 hours working on this
matter from July 2016 to October 2019, submitting invoices that reflect the hours worked and
services provided. ECF No. 46-3 at 4-39. As costs, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the $400
filing fee. Id. at 13. The lodestar calculation (reasonable hourly rate multiplied by hours of work
performed) thus supports the requested award of $20,772 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in
expenses, for a total of $21,172.00. Id. ¶ 8; Loc. R. 3, Appendix B. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for $21,172.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
7
Current counsel of record, Christopher M. Leins with the law firm Sleiven & Hart, P.C.,
also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 46-2. Leins attests that he, along with
Sharon Goodman and Sarah Sanchez, represented Plaintiffs beginning in April 2019. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7.
Lein has practiced law since 2009, Goodman over thirty years, and Sanchez since at least 2008. 6
Their respective rates of $300 and $410 generally comport with the Local Rule guidelines, and
the Court finds them reasonable. See Loc. R. 3, Appendix B.
Lein also attested that paralegal, Olivia Hintz, performed a total of 18.8 hours at a rate of
$200 per hour. ECF No. 46-2 ¶ 7; id. at 67. Hintz’ hourly rate substantially exceeds this Court’s
presumptively reasonable range of $95-150. See Loc. R. 3, Appendix B. Moreover, Plaintiffs
have not provided grounds to justify exceeding the presumptively reasonable rate in this
instance. See Robinson, 560 F.3d at 244 (finding “the burden rests with the fee applicant to
establish the reasonableness of a requested rate”). Accordingly, the Court will award fees for
the entirety of Hintz’ time at an hourly rate of $150, the upper limit of the presumptively
reasonable fee range.
Based on the hourly rates of $300 for Lein, $410 for Goodman and Sanchez, and a
modified hourly rate of $150 for Hintz, multiplied by the number of hours each individual
worked (ECF No. 46-2), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs $13,958 in attorneys’ fees and costs for
Sleiven & Hart’s representation.
6
Plaintiffs did not provide an exact number of years that Ms. Sanchez has practiced law. ECF No. 46-2 at 26.
However, Lein attests that Ms. Sanchez has long served as a principal at the firm, and other materials submitted
suggest that Ms. Sanchez has been practicing law since at least 2008. Id. at 47.
8
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, ECF No. 46, is
GRANTED, and it is this 8th day of January 2021, ORDERED by the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland:
1. Judgment SHALL BE entered Defendant Third Generation Electric, LLC, and in favor of
Plaintiffs, the Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, the Electrical Workers Local No. 26
Pension Trust Fund, the Electrical Local No. 26 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Fund, the Electrical Workers Local No. 26 Individual Account Fund, the National
Electrical Benefit Fund, the National Electrical Contractors Association, Washington
D.C. Chapter, and the National and Local Labor Management Cooperation Committees.
2. Damages ARE awarded in the amount of $467,850.63, consisting of $358,537.46 in
delinquent contributions and payroll audits; $4,812.28 in interest on the delinquent
amounts, accruing through the date paid; $69,370.89 in liquidated damages; and $35,130
in attorneys’ fees and costs; and
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
the parties and CLOSE this case.
1/8/2021
Date
_____/s/________________
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge
9
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?