Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust et al v. Beisley Enterprises LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Beisley Enterprises, LLC. Defendant Beisley Enterprises LLC is liable to the Plaintiffs under ERISA and under the terms of the applicable written trust agreements. Defendant Beisley Enterprises LLC is ordered to provide Plaintiffs with its monthly remittance reports for the months of January through October 2024 within thirty (30) days of this order. Signed by Judge John H. Chun. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

NORTHWEST CARPENTERS HEALTH AND
SECURITY TRUST; NORTHWEST
CARPENTERS RETIREMENT TRUST;
NORTHWEST CARPENTERS VACATION
TRUST; and CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS
APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST
FUND OF WASHINGTON-IDAHO,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00819-JHC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT BEISLEY ENTERPRISES
LLC

Plaintiffs,

BEISLEY ENTERPRISES LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; and LISHA BEISLEY,
an individual,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant

19

Beisley Enterprises, LLC. Dkt. # 13. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ motion and

20

supporting papers, as well as the pleadings, files, and court records in this matter, as well as the

21

governing law.

22

Being otherwise fully advised, the Court rules as follows:

23

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 1
2:24-cv-00819-JHC

1.

1
2

Also, venue is proper before the Court.

3
4
5

2.

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's
substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at
stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6)
whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the
merits.

7
8

10
11

Courts typically consider these “Eitel factors” when evaluating a request for

a default judgment:

6

9

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’
analysis of the Eitel factors as set forth in the motion, and the conclusion that a majority of those
factors weigh in support of entry of default judgment. See Dkt. # 13 at 5-6.

12

3.

Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion.

4.

Defendant Beisley Enterprises LLC is liable to the Plaintiffs under ERISA and

13
14
15

under the terms of the applicable written trust agreements.

16
17
18

5.

Defendant Beisley Enterprises LLC is ordered to provide Plaintiffs with its monthly

remittance reports for the months of January through October 2024 within thirty (30) days of this
order.

19
20
21
22

6.

The Court retains jurisdiction for Plaintiffs to reopen this matter and seek entry of

an amended judgment once Defendant Beisley Enterprises has provided the delinquent remittance
reports.

23

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 2
2:24-cv-00819-JHC

1
2

7.

The Court defers consideration of any award of reasonable attorney fees and costs

under 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2)(D) and the terms of the applicable Trust Agreements.

3
4
5
6

Dated: November 25, 2024.

John H. Chun
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 3
2:24-cv-00819-JHC