BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO.12 COMBINED FUNDS v. MAINLINE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. et al
Filing
15
OPINION granting 13 MOTION for Default Judgment against MAINLINE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., JANET MOSKE, CHARLENE SZYMANOWSKI, and MICHAEL SZYMANOWSKI filed by BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO.12 COMBINED FUNDS. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 9/12/2011. (sjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 12 COMBINED FUNDS,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
Civil Action No. 11-71E
)
MAINLINE MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.,
JANET MOSKE,
CHARLENE SZYMANOWSKI, and
MICHAEL SZYMANOWSKI,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' "Motion For Default Judgment against
Defendants, Mainline Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Janet Moske, Charlene Szymanowski and
Michael Szymanowski" ("Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment") [ECF #13]. Plaintiffs filed
a Complaint against Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ("ERISA") and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq. ("WPCL") [ECF #1]. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is granted.
I.
Legal Analysis.
A. Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 outlines a two-step process for obtaining a default
judgment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55. The first step is an entry of default. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).
"When 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." Id. Typically the entry of default is a ministerial task performed by the Clerk
of Court and no motion is needed and no order is involved. Plaintiffs requested entry of default
against Defendants on September 1,2011 [ECF #12] and default was entered by the Clerk of
Court on September 2,2011 [ECF #14].
B. Plaintiffs' Request for Entry of Default Judgment.
Plaintiffs seek a default judgment in their favor and against Defendant Mainline
Mechanical Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $13,444.0 1 for violation of Section 515 of
ERISA, 29 V.S.C § 1145 and a default judgment in their favor and against Defendants Janet
Moske, Charlene Szymanowski and Michael Szymanowski in the amount of$10,788.54 for
violation of Section 3 of the Pennsylvania WPCL, 43 P.S. § 260.3. In support thereof, Plaintiffs'
counsel filed both an "Affidavit in Support of Motion For Default Judgment against Defendants,
Mainline Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Janet Moske, Charlene Szymanowski and Michael
Szymanowski, Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" [ECF #13-1]
and an "Affidavit in Support of Damages and Attorneys' Fees" [ECF #13-2]
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b) is titled "Entering a Default Judgment" and states:
(1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiffs claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be
made certain by computation, the clerk--on the plaintiffs request, with an
affidavit showing the amount due--must enter judgment for that amount and costs
against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a
minor nor an incompetent person.
(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default
judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent
person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like
fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is
sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its
representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 7 days
before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals--preserving
any federal statutory right to a jury trial--when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it
2
needs to:
(A) conduct an accounting;
(B) determine the amount of damages;
(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or
(D) investigate any other matter.
Fed.R.Civ.P.55(b)(2).
After having reviewed the documents of record in this matter, the Court finds that none of
the Defendants are either a minor or an incompetent and they are not in the military. We further
find that the allegations in the Complaint, if taken as true, establish that we have subject matter
jurisdiction over this litigation, in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants, and that the
Complaint states a viable claim by Plaintiffs against Defendant Mainline Contractors, Inc. for
violation of ERISA and a viable claim by Plaintiffs against Defendants Mainline Mechanical
Contractors, Inc., Janet Moske, Charlene Szymanowski and Michael Szymanowski for violation
of Pennsylvania's WPCL. Therefore, we will grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment
against all Defendants.
II. Conclusion.
Plaintiff s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Mainline Mechanical
Contractors, Inc., Janet Moske, Charlene Szymanowski and Michael Szymanowski is granted.
An appropriate Order follows.
September
1U~t. ~ t.iJ{.~
I ~, 2011
Maunce B. Cohill, Jr.
Senior District Court Judge
3
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?