Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund et al v. Abel Building Restoration Inc

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/25/2014 DENYING 10 Motion for Injunctive Relief. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Abel Building Restoration) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BUILDING TRADES UNITED PENSION
TRUST FUND, and SCOTT REDMAN
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-C-421

ABEL BUILDING RESTORATION INC.,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion for entry of injunctive relief filed by
the Plaintiffs, Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund and Scott Redman. Upon
request of the Plaintiffs, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant Abel
Building Restoration Inc. (“Abel”).
The Plaintiffs have more work to do before they may obtain the requested relief.
Having previously obtained entry of default by the Clerk of Court on June 25, 2014, the
action is in the proper procedural posture for a default judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a) & 55(b)(2).

A default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that the

defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for the causes of action alleged in the Complaint. See
e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing United
States v. Di Mucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1497 (7th Cir. 1989)). However, the Plaintiffs have
not filed a motion for default judgment.
Furthermore, default judgment does not answer whether a particular remedy is
appropriate. Id. (quoting Di Mucci, 879 F.2d at 1497 (“Because . . . liability was

established by default, the law in this circuit indicates that in a case such as this, an
evidentiary hearing may be required to establish what type of relief is necessary.”) The
appeals court stated, “[t]his principle applies with equal if not greater force in the context
of equitable relief, for which the law imposes a requirement that the party seeking the
injunction demonstrate the inadequacy of legal relief.” Id. (quoting Walgreen Co. v. Sara
Creek Property Co., B.V., 966 F.2d 273, 275 (7th Cir. 1992)) (“The plaintiff who seeks
an injunction has the burden of persuasion—damages are the norm, so the plaintiff must
show why his case is abnormal. . . . [W]hen, as in this case, the issue is whether to grant a
permanent injunction . . . the burden is to show that damages are inadequate. . . .”). The
Plaintiffs request injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling Abel to submit to an
audit; however they have not addressed the standard for injunctive relief or why such
relief should be granted in this case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
The Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

-2-