Bd. of Trs., Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund v. Aerodynamics Inspecting Co.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-cv-01592 (TSE/IDD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, v. AERODYNAMICS INSPECTING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund (“Fund” or “Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion”) against Aerodynamics Inspecting Company and Aerodynamics Inspecting LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 17. After a licensed attorney for Defendants failed to appear at the hearing on April 9, 2021, the undersigned Magistrate Judge took this matter under advisement to issue this Report and Recommendation. Upon consideration of the Complaint Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, and the supporting documentation thereto, the undersigned Magistrate Judge makes the following findings and recommends that the Motion be GRANTED on Counts I and II of the Complaint.
On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action under Sections 502, 515, and 4301 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C §§ 1132, 1145, and 1451. See Compl. ¶ 4. This law allows parties to enforce provisions of collective bargaining agreements. In its Complaint, Plaintiff seeks delinquent withdrawal liability payments, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to ERISA. Id. at 8.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under a federal law, ERISA. Furthermore, jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 (e) and (f), and 29 U.S.C. § 1451 (c).
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to ERISA, which provides that any action brought under the statute “may be brought in the district where the plan is administered.” See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). ERISA also allows for nationwide service of process. Id. “Where a defendant has been validly served pursuant to a federal statute's nationwide service of process provision, a district court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant so long as jurisdiction comports with the Fifth Amendment.” Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Plumbing Services, Inc., 791 F.3d 436, 443 (4th Cir. 2015). To support a Fifth Amendment challenge, a defendant must show that “the district court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over [them] would result in ‘such extreme inconvenience or unfairness as would outweigh the congressionally articulated policy' evidenced by a nationwide service of process provision.” Id. at 444 (quoting Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 524 n. 2 (4th Cir. 2004)). A citizen of the United States would have difficulty showing such extreme inconvenience or unfairness. Id. Here, the Funds are administered in Fairfax, Virginia, which is within the Eastern District of Virginia. Compl. ¶1. As discussed below, Defendants were properly served with process. Because Defendant Aerodynamics Inspecting Company (“Aerodynamics Co.”) is incorporated under Michigan law and has its principal place of business in Michigan, (Compl. ¶ 2), it would be “highly unusual” for Defendant Aerodynamics Co. to show that any “inconvenience will rise to a level of constitutional concern.” Plumbers & Pipefitters, 791 F.3d at 444. The same is true of co-Defendant Aerodynamics Inspecting LLC (“Aerodynamics LLC”), which exists under Florida law and is authorized to conduct business in Michigan with its principal office located in Dearborn, Michigan. Compl. ¶ 3. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
Finally, venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(2) and 1451(d) as the Plaintiff Fund is administered in this district, and its principal place of business is in Fairfax, Virginia. See Compl. ¶ 1 and 5. Therefore, venue is appropriate in this Court.
Under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(2), service of process is proper in any district where a defendant resides or may be found. Although §§ 1132(e) states where a defendant may be served, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the manner in which service must occur. Under Rule 4(h), service upon a corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association shall be effectuated “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h).
On January 20, 2021, a private process server served a true and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint on Laszlo A. Lukacs Sr., owner of Aerodynamics Inspecting Co. Dkt. No. 9. On February 12, 2021, a private process server mailed and served a true and correct copy of the Summons and Complaint on Camelia Moldovan, who accepted service for Aerodynamics LLC. Dkt. No. 11. Therefore, Plaintiff properly served Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(2) and Rule 4(h).
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on December 28, 2020. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants have failed to appear, answer, or file any other responsive pleadings in this matter. On March 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Aerodynamics Inspecting Co. Dkt. No. 10. On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Aerodynamics Inspecting LLC. Dkt. No. 12. The Clerk entered default against both Defendants on March 16, 2021. Dkt. No. 15. On April 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment, and the Court conducted a hearing on the matter on April 9, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 17, 20. After Defendants failed to appear at the April 9, 2021 hearing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge took this matter under advisement to issue this Report and Recommendation.
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of default judgment when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend. See Music City Music v. Alfa Foods, Ltd., 616 F.Supp. 1001, 1002 (E.D. Va. 1985). Foremost, a court must be satisfied that the complaint states a legitimate cause of action. See Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp't of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 506 (4th Cir. 1998) (). A defendant in default concedes the factual allegations of the complaint. See, e.g., Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Partington v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 443 F.3d 334, 341 (4th Cir. 2006) (). Default does not, however, constitute an admission of the adversary's conclusions of law and is not to be “treated as an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff's right to recover.” Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780 (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). Instead, the court must “determine whether the well-pleaded allegations in [the plaintiff's] complaint support the relief sought in [the] action.” Id.
Thus, in issuing this Report and Recommendation, the undersigned Magistrate Judge must evaluate Plaintiff's claims against the standards of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that the Complaint contains plausible claims upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (). To meet this standard, a complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In determining whether allegations are plausible, the reviewing court may draw on context, judicial experience, and common sense. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
Upon a full review of the pleadings, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff has established the following facts. Plaintiff Fund is the sponsor and administrator of a multiemployer employee pension benefit plan administered from offices located in Fairfax, Virginia.[1]Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant Aerodynamics Co. is a corporation existing under Michigan law and has its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. Id. ¶2. At all relevant times, Defendant Aerodynamics Co. has been an “employer in an industry affecting commerce, ” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 142(1), (3), and 152(2); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), (9), (11) and (12); and 29 U.S.C. § 1001a. Id. Defendant Aerodynamics LLC is a limited liability company existing under Florida law and authorized to conduct business in Michigan with its principal office located in Dearborn, Michigan. Id. ¶ 3. At all relevant times, Defendant Aerodynamics LLC has been an “employer in an industry affecting commerce, ” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 142(1), (3), and 152(2); 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5), (9), (11) and (12); and 29 U.S.C. § 1001a.). Id.
Defendant Aerodynamics Co. was signatory to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA” or “Agreement”) with Sheet Metal Workers Local 33 (“Local 33” or the “Union”), and pursuant to the CBA agreed to be bound by the Trust Agreement establishing the Fund. Compl. ¶6-7....
To continue reading
Request your trial