Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. LA Williams Construction, LLC et al

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for Default Judgment be granted and that the Clerk enter judgment against Defendant LA Williams Construction LLC. It is also recommended that Defendant Louis Williams be dismissed wit hout prejudice. Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/4/2017. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Louis Williams @ 7807 Affinity Place, Cincinnati OH 45231])

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF OHIO
LABORERS’ FRINGE BENEFIT
PROGRAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:16-cv-304
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson

LA WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is an action for unpaid fringe benefit contributions, liquidated damages, and interest
allegedly owed certain employee benefits plans pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
Plaintiffs, the trustees of four trust funds, assert claims under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132.
Defendants LA Williams Construction, LLC and Louis Williams dba LA Williams Construction
were served with a summons and a copy of the complaint on April 14, 2016 (Docs. 3–4), but
have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action. (See Doc. 8). Plaintiffs applied to the Clerk
for entry of default (Doc. 9), and the Clerk entered default pursuant to Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 55(a) on June 23, 2016 (Doc. 10). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Default Judgment, seeking default judgment against Defendant LA Williams
Construction, LLC. (Doc. 13). Plaintiffs also request that the claims against Defendant Louis
Williams be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 1).

Plaintiffs have established that Defendant LA Williams Construction, LLC entered into
an agreement with a local union affiliated with the Laborers’ District Council of Ohio, AFL-CIO,
by which it agreed to pay contributions to the funds, by the 15th of each month, on behalf of its
employees working within the work jurisdiction of the union. (See Doc. 13-3, PAGEID #: 43).
The affidavit of Plaintiffs’ Contractor Relations Manager (Doc. 13-2), establishes that Defendant
LA Williams Construction, LLC owes $10,454.84 in unpaid fringe benefit contributions,
liquidated damages, and interest for the period November 2015 through June 2016. (Id. at ¶ 3);
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).
Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,733.75, for 19.25 hours
billed at the rate of $255.00 and $280.00 per hour. (Doc. 13-1, PAGEID #: 40). Plaintiffs have
provided evidentiary support that the number of hours billed and the hourly rates charged are
reasonable. (Id.).
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to judgment in the amount of $10,454.84 in unpaid fringe
benefit contributions, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest, and an award of attorney’s
fees in the amount of $4,733.75.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (Doc.
13), be GRANTED.

It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk enter judgment

against Defendant LA Williams Construction, LLC, and that Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees of the
Ohio Laborers’ Fringe Benefit Programs have and recover from LA Williams Construction,
LLC, the sum of Ten Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars and Eighty-Four Cents
($10,454.84), including unpaid fringe benefit contributions through June 2016, prejudgment
interest, and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of Four Thousand
Seven Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($4,733.75), plus interest from the

2

date of judgment at the rate of one percent (1%) per month. Finally, it is RECOMMENDED
that Defendant Louis Williams be dismissed without prejudice.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers,
Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 4, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3