Wisconsin Sheet Metal Workers Health and Benefit Fund et al v. CJ Contracting LLC

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/22/2014. 20 MOTION for Entry of Default GRANTED to the extent that based on Defendant CJ Contracting's violations of ERISA between 4/1/2012 and 11/30/2013, Plaintiffs shall recover total damages of $31,860.28 from Defendant. This action is TERMINATED. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN SHEET METAL WORKERS HEALTH
AND BENEFIT FUND, MILWAUKEE AREA SHEET
METAL JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICESHIP
TRAINING FUND, WISCONSIN SHEET METAL
WORKERS 401(k) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, and
PATRICK LANDGRAF (in his capacity as Trustee),
SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL PENSION
FUND, SHEET METAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
INSTITUTE TRUST FUND,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 13-C-991

v.
CJ CONTRACTING, LLC,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

This action is before the Court on the motion for entry of judgment awarding
$31,860.28 in total damages plus interest pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 21.) The Plaintiffs, Wisconsin Sheet Metal Workers
Health and Benefit Fund; Milwaukee Area Sheet Metal Journeymen and
Apprenticeship Training Fund; Wisconsin Sheet Metal Workers 401(k) Profit Sharing
Plan; Patrick Landgraf, in his capacity as trustee (“Landgraf”); Sheet Metal Workers
National Pension Fund; and Sheet Metal Occupational Health Institute Trust Fund
(collectively the “Plaintiffs”), seek such relief against Defendant CJ Contracting, LLC

(“CJ”). The proposed judgment amount includes unpaid contributions, reasonable
attorney fees, and costs and is accompanied by the affidavit of Benjamin J. Roovers
(“Roovers”) and attached exhibits. (ECF Nos. 21-1-21-4.)
The motion was preceded by the Court’s November 5, 2013, Decision and
Order granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment to the extent that it found CJ
liable for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (“ERISA”), by breaching its obligations under the controlling collective
bargaining agreement.

(ECF No. 12.)

The Court also directed CJ to allow the

Plaintiffs’ designated representative to audit its books for the period of April 1, 2012,
through the present, and directed the Plaintiffs to file the results of the audit.
Additionally the Court advised the Plaintiffs that, if the audit established CJ owed
unpaid contributions for that time period, any claim for reasonable attorney fees should
address the legal criteria for such award and provide supporting documentation to
establish the reasonableness of the claimed hourly fee, hours expended, and the nature
of the work performed in accordance with the case law of the Seventh Circuit, citing
Stark v. PPM Am., Inc., 354 F.3d 666, 673 (7th Cir. 2004); Anderson v. AB Painting
and Sandblasting Inc., 578 F.3d 542, 544 (7th Cir. 2009).
With respect to the Plaintiffs’ damage claim against CJ, ERISA provides that,
[i]n any action under this subchapter by a fiduciary for or
on behalf of a plan to enforce section 1145 of this title in
which a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded, the
court shall award the plan --

-2-

(A) the unpaid contributions,
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,
(C) an amount equal to the greater of -(i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or
(ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an
amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such higher
percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State
law) of the amount determined by the court under
subparagraph (A),
(D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action, to
be paid by the defendant, and
(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems
appropriate.
For purposes of this paragraph, interest on unpaid
contributions shall be determined by using the rate
provided under the plan, or, if none, the rate prescribed
under section 6621 of the Title 26.
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). (Emphasis added.) Thus, ERISA requires a court to award
attorney fees and costs to a prevailing fiduciary in an action to collect delinquent
contributions. Laborers' Pension Fund v. RES Envtl. Servs., Inc., 377 F.3d 735, 739
(7th Cir. 2004).
The results of the Plaintiffs’ audit establish that CJ’s unpaid contributions from
April 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013, and the interest on those amounts total
$29,158.68. Therefore, that amount is awarded.
The Plaintiffs also claim attorney fees of $2,235.00 incurred between July 6,
2012, and January 13, 2014. The information regarding the Plaintiffs’ attorney fees
-3-

does not fulfill the criteria outlined in the Court’s November 5, 2013, Decision and
Order. Plaintiffs have not addressed the legal standard, provided the hourly rate
charged by counsel, or established the reasonableness of that fee or the hours
expended.
Although the Plaintiffs have not provided the hourly fee charged by Kathryn
A. Brietlow (KAB), the attorney who filed this action, Roovers (BJR), or two other
attorneys identified only as “CJA” or “JJB” who also worked on this case, dividing
$2,235.00 by the claimed 14.90 hours, the average hourly fee claimed by Plaintiffs’
counsel is $150.00. This Court has approved the same hourly fee in other similar
litigation by Plaintiffs’ counsel. See Wisconsin Sheet Metal Workers Health & Ben.
Fund v. CC Installations, Inc., 11-C-641, 2011 WL 5404035, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 7,
2011). To expedite the resolution of the default motion, the Court will rely on its
calculation rather than requiring the Plaintiffs to supplement their default judgment
motion in this action. However, the Plaintiffs are admonished that the Court’s orders
are controlling in an action. Compliance is expected.
The Plaintiffs’ papers also establish costs in the amount of $466.60. That
amount is approved.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court order entry of a judgment stating that
they are awarded “the amount of [total damages] together with interest at the rate
allowed by law.” However, “civil litigants who win money judgments in district
courts are entitled to post judgment interest” by statute. See Pace Commc’ns, Inc. v.
-4-

Moonlight Design, Inc., 31 F.3d 587, 591 (7th Cir. 1994). A judgment awarding
postjudgment interest is redundant.

Id. Additionally, awarding interest, without

specifying whether it is prejudgment or postjudgment, creates confusion. Id. The
Plaintiffs’ damage calculations for unpaid contributions include some prejudgment
interest, so they apparently seek postjudgment interest, which is redundant and
unnecessary. See id. Therefore, the Clerk of Court should not include the provision
for interest in the judgment.
Based on the foregoing, having found that CJ is liable for violating ERISA, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145, by breaching its obligations under the
controlling collective bargaining agreement, the Court awards to the Plaintiffs, against
CJ, the total amount of damages of $31,860.28. The total damage amount includes
unpaid contributions, pre-judgment interest from April 1, 2012, through November
30, 2013, attorney fees, and costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
The Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED to the
following extent:
Based on CJ’s violations of ERISA between April 1, 2012, and November 30,
2013, the Plaintiffs shall recover total damages of $31,860.28 from CJ;
This action is TERMINATED; and

-5-

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO ENTER judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of January, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-6-