Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund for Southern Nevada et al v. CY Expo, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' 7 motion for default judgment is GRANTED. With good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT against defendant CY Expo, LLC in the amount of $105,147 (delinquent employee benefit contributions ($87,460), liquidated damages ($21,777), interest ($21,777), and attorneys' fees and costs ($15,070) minus the $40,937 that CY Expo has already paid) in favor of each plaintiff and to close this case. Signed by Judge Cristina D. Silva on 6/3/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614
702.382.2101

The fourth Eitel factor concerns the damages at stake in the case. The damages in

2

this case are reasonable and well-documented, on the Trust Funds’ governing documents and

3

calculations performed. Moreover, the damages in this case are also dictated by statute. ERISA

4

states that, in cases like this one, courts shall award unpaid contributions, interest on the unpaid

5

contributions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of the action, and other

6

legal or equitable relief that the court determines appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). This factor

7

also favors the entry of default judgment.

8

B ROWNSTEIN H YATT F ARBER S CHRECK , LLP

5.

6.

Regarding the fifth Eitel factor, there is no possibility of dispute concerning the

9

material facts. Because CY Expo has had a default entered against it, the allegations in the

10

complaint are deemed admitted and taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560

11

(9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S., 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). CY Expo has not appeared to rebut

12

any of the allegations. Therefore, the fifth Eitel factor also favors the entry of default judgment.

13

7.

The sixth Eitel factor demonstrates that excusable neglect is not a factor here. CY

14

Expo’s failure to answer was not based on excusable neglect. The complaint was filed on

15

October 9, 2023. ECF No. 1. A summons was issued to CY Expo the day after, on October 10,

16

2023 (ECF No. 3), and the registered agent accepted service of the summons and complaint on

17

October 17, 2023 (ECF No. 4). No evidence suggests that CY Expo’s failure to respond was due to

18

to excusable neglect. The sixth Eitel factor favors the entry of a default judgment.

19

8.

The seventh and final Eitel factor also weighs in favor of entering default judgment.

20

Despite the general policy that cases “should be decided on the merits whenever reasonably

21

possible,” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472, when defendants fail to answer the complaint, a decision on the

22

merits is “impractical, if not impossible.” Constr. Laborers Tr. Funds for S. California Admin. Co.

23

v. Anzalone Masonry, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 1192, 1202 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (citing PepsiCo v. Cal.

24

Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2002). “Thus, the preference to decide

25

a case on the merits does not preclude a court from granting default judgment.” PepsiCo, 238 F.

26

Supp.2d at 1177 (citing Kloepping v. Fireman’s Fund, 1996 WL 75314, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13,

27

1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite the strong policy favoring decisions on the

28

merits, I find that the Eitel factors ultimately weigh in favor of default judgment here.
4