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)

Download PDF
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

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?