Trustees of the National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Eckardt Electric Co.

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Defendant 2/7/24 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/7/2024. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND
v.

:
:
:

Civil Action No. DKC 23-1459

:

ECKARDT ELECTRIC CO.

:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action
arising under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, 29
U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”) is Plaintiffs’ motion for default
judgment.

(ECF No. 15).

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, Plaintiffs’

motion will be granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs are trustees of a multi-employer pension plan, the

National Electrical Benefit Fund (“NEBF”).

Plaintiffs are also

fiduciaries to NEBF and authorized to file this action under 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) as they are an employee benefit plan within
the meaning of § 3(2) of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2). Defendant
Eckardt Electric Co. (“Eckardt”) is an employer engaged in an
industry affecting commerce under ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5).
NEBF was established and is maintained by an agreement between the

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) and the
National Electrical Contractors Association (“NECA”).

Eckardt

agreed to participate in the NEBF when it became a signatory to
the labor agreement between the IBEW and NECA by signing letters
of

assent

with

the

Atlanta

Chapter,

National

Electrical

Contractors of America on March 28, 1988, and with the local NECA
chapter Gulf Coast Chapter, B’ham Division on July 6, 2010.
No. 15-4).

(ECF

The letters of assent bind Eckardt to the “inside labor

agreements” between NECA and IBEW Local Unions 136 and 613 and the
Restated

Employees

Benefit

Agreement

and

Trust

and

obligate

Eckardt to submit contributions to NEBF.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of NEBF on May 31,
2023, alleging that Eckardt breached the collective bargaining
agreement by failing to contribute to NEBF three percent of the
gross

payroll

paid

to

employees

in

the

bargaining

unit

for

September 2022 through November 2022, as well as seeking liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
Plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on Eckardt on
August 28, 2023.

When Defendant failed to respond within the

requisite time period, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default.
The clerk entered default against Eckardt on October 18, 2023.
(ECF Nos. 12, 13).

Plaintiffs filed the subject motion for entry

of default judgment on January 19, 2024.
2

(ECF No. 15).

Plaintiffs seek default judgment in the amount of $311,390.14 1
which consists of $235,103.97 in contributions, liquidated damages
of $47,020.79, interest of $25,480.38, and attorneys’ fees of
$3,785.
II.

Standard of Review
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), “[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, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”

Where a

default has been previously entered by the clerk and the complaint
does not specify a certain amount of damages, the court may enter
a default judgment, upon the plaintiff’s application and notice to
the

defaulting

party,

pursuant

to

Fed.R.Civ.P.

55(b)(2).

A

defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff
to entry of a default judgment; rather, that decision is left to
the discretion of the court.

See Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491,

494 (D.Md. 2002); Lipenga v. Kambalame, 219 F. Supp. 3d 517 (D.Md.
2016).

The Fourth Circuit has a “strong policy” that “cases be

decided on their merits,” id. (citing United States v. Shaffer
Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993)), but default judgment

Requested reimbursement for the court’s $402 filing fee has
not been included in Plaintiffs’ request of $311,390.14, but will
be awarded.
3
1

may be appropriate when the adversary process has been halted
because

of

an

essentially

unresponsive

party,

see

S.E.C.

v.

Lawbaugh, 359 F.Supp.2d 418, 421 (D.Md. 2005) (citing Jackson v.
Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
Upon

entry

of

default,

the

well-pled

allegations

in

a

complaint as to liability are taken as true, but the allegations
as to damages are not.
first

determines

Lawbaugh, 359 F.Supp.2d at 422.

whether

the

unchallenged

factual

The court

allegations

constitute a legitimate cause of action, and, if liability is
established, the court then makes an independent determination of
damages.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

While the court may hold a

hearing to prove damages, it is not required to do so; it may rely
instead

on

“detailed

affidavits

determine the appropriate sum.”

or

documentary

evidence

to

Adkins, 180 F.Supp.2d at 17

(citing United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th
Cir. 1979)); see also Laborers’ Dist. Council Pension v. E.G.S.,
Inc., Civ. No. WDQ-09-3174, 2010 WL 1568595, at *3 (D.Md. Apr. 16,
2010) (“on default judgment, the Court may only award damages
without a hearing if the record supports the damages requested”).
III. Analysis
Assuming the truth of the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint, as the court must upon entry of default, Plaintiffs
have established a violation under ERISA.
4

Section 502(a)(3)

authorizes Plaintiffs to enforce the provisions of the trust
agreements.

See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) (providing that a civil

action may be brought:

“(A) to enjoin any act or practice which

violates . . . the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other
appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or
(ii) to enforce any . . . terms of the plan”).

According to the

complaint, Defendant is a signatory to the Restated Employees
Benefit Agreement and Trust for the National Electrical Benefit
Fund and is, therefore, obligated to comply with the terms of the
Agreement.

Based on these undisputed allegations, Plaintiffs have

stated a sufficient claim for relief under ERISA.
A.

Unpaid Contributions

The complaint and motion for default judgment demands payment
to Plaintiffs of $235,103.97 representing unpaid contributions for
September 2022 through November 2022.

Plaintiffs made demands for

the delinquent contributions, but Defendant has not made payment.
The record supports Plaintiffs’ demand for $235,103.97 in unpaid
contributions.
B.

Liquidated Damages and Interest

Plaintiffs

have

attached

a

spreadsheet

that

calculates

interest at ten percent (10%) compounded monthly as provided for
in the Agreement.

Plaintiffs also seek $47,020.79 in liquidated

damages on late contributions.
5

The Agreement between the parties obligates Defendant to pay
twenty percent (20%) as liquidated damages and ten percent (10%)
interest compounded monthly throughout the period of delinquency.
(ECF No. 15-5 at 7).

Thus, liquidated damages of $47,020.79 and

interest of $25,480.38 on late contributions are supported by the
record and will be awarded.
C.

Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs seek $3,785 in attorneys’ fees.

In support of

this request, Plaintiffs submit a Declaration of Counsel in support
of judgment and demand for attorneys’ fees and a spreadsheet of
the hours billed by Plaintiff’s counsel.

(ECF No. 9-1).

The

spreadsheet shows that the firm spent 12.6 hours on this case on
behalf of the Plaintiffs.

Jennifer Hawkins, a licensed attorney

since 1994, charged $475 per hour and Peter Tkach, a member of
this bar since May 2023, charged $225 an hour for attorney time.
The sum requested is supported by the record and Plaintiffs will
be awarded $3,785 for attorneys’ fees.
D.

Costs

Plaintiffs seek $402 in costs representing the filing fee to
commence this action and the record supports this request.

6

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for the entry

of default judgment will be granted. A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

7