Northern California Glaziers Pension Trust Fund v. Victory Bldg. Maint. Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C 11-0966 CW (MEJ),Dkt. No. 16,C 11-0966 CW (MEJ) |
| Parties | NORTHERN CALIFORNIA GLAZIERS PENSION TRUST FUND; DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER, Trustee; and JOHN MAGGIORE, Trustee, Plaintiffs, v. VICTORY BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Northern California Glaziers Pension Trust Fund, Douglas Christopher, and John Maggiore's (collectively "Plaintiffs") Motion for Default Judgment, filed August 19, 2011. Dkt. No. 16. For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT default judgment against Defendant Hollis Glass, Inc. ("Defendant") and award Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $490,933.44 for assessed withdrawal liability, liquidated damages, and interest, and $9,273.00 in attorneys' fees and costs, for a total award of $500,206.44.
Plaintiff Northern California Glaziers Pension Trust Fund ("the Trust") is an "employee benefit plan" as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") Section 3(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(3)), an "employee benefit pension plan" as defined by ERISASection 3(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(2); and a "multiemployer plan" as defined by ERISA Sections 3(37) and 4001(a)(3) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(37) and 1301(a)(3)). Compl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 1. The Trust is jointly administered and maintained pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act Section 302(c) (29 U.S.C. § 186(c). Id. Plaintiffs Douglas Christopher and John Maggiore are members of the Board of Trustees of the Trust, the "plan sponsor" within the meaning of ERISA Sections 3(16)(B)(iii) and 4001(a)(10)(A) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(16)(B)(iii) and 1301(a)(10)(A)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Douglas Christopher and John Maggiore are fiduciaries of the Trust under ERISA Sections 3(21)(A) and 402(a) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(a)). Id. at ¶ 4. As Trustees of the Trust they are empowered to bring this action on behalf of the Trust. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3) and 1451(a)(1)-(b).
Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California. Compl. ¶ 5. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(5) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(5)) and National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") Section 2(2) (29 U.S.C. § 152(2)), and is engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(11) and (12) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(11) and (12)). Id.
Pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with District Council No. 16, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades ("the Union"), Defendant was a participating employer in the Northern California Glaziers Pension Trust Fund. Compl. ¶ 12; McCormick Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 17. The Union is a labor organization as defined in NLRA Section 2(5) (29 U.S.C. § 152(5)) that represents employees in an industry affecting interstate commerce. Compl. ¶ 12.
In August 2005, Defendant made a complete withdrawal from participation in the Trust under ERISA Section 4203(b) (29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)), which thereby triggered the Trust to assess withdrawal liability against Defendant. Compl. ¶ 3; McCormick Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs duly notified Defendant of the withdrawal liability assessed against it as required by ERISA Sections 4201-03 (29 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.). Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15; McCormick Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. In particular, the Trust notified Defendant that it had the option to challenge the calculation of the withdrawal liability by requesting review within 90 days from receiving the notice of the withdrawal liability assessment asprovided by ERISA Section 4219(b)(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(2)), and that any dispute concerning a determination of withdrawal liability must be resolved through arbitration provided that arbitration was timely requested under ERISA Section 4221(a) (29 U.S.C. § 1401(a)). Compl. ¶ 15(d) and (e); McCormick Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C. Defendant never challenged the withdrawal liability assessment by requesting review or initiating arbitration. Compl. ¶ 16. Defendant also made eight quarterly installment payments on the withdrawal liability totaling $75,672. Compl. ¶ 17; McCormick Decl. ¶ 6. Of that amount, $55,804 was allocated toward interest and $19,868 was allocated toward reduction of the principal liability assessed. Id. Defendant thereafter failed to make any further installment payments, leaving a withdrawal liability of $394,780. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18; McCormick Decl. ¶ 6.
On March 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant seeking judgment against Hollis Glass, Inc. for the entire balance of the withdrawal liability of $394,780 under ERISA Section 4219(c)(5) (29 U.S.C. § 1399(c)(5)), interest under ERISA Sections 4201-03 (29 U.S.C. Sections 1381, et seq.), liquidated damages under ERISA Sections 4301(b) and 502(g)(2) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1451(b) and 1132(g)(2)), and attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with this action as permitted by ERISA Sections 4301(e) and 502(g) (29 U.S.C. §§ 1451(e) and 1132(g)). Dkt. No. 1.
On March 17, 2011, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a copy of the Complaint and Summons. Dkt. Nos. 6-7. Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint. On April 11, 2011, Plaintiffs notified Defendant that should Defendant not respond to the Complaint by April 21, 2011, Plaintiffs would immediately request the entry of default against Defendant and, without further notice, would move the Court for entry of judgment against Defendant for the withdrawal liability assessment, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and for injunctive relief ordering Defendant to furnish information and produce documents under ERISA Section 4219(a). Johnson Decl., at ¶8, Exhibit H, Dkt. No. 18.
On April 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a request for the Clerk of Court to enter default. Dkt. No. 9. On May 3, 2011, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant. Dkt. No. 10.
On August 19, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Hollis Glass, Inc. Dkt. Nos. 16-19. On August 24, 2011, the matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Claudia Wilken for a report and recommendation on Plaintiffs' motion. Dkt. No. 24. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek entry of judgment by default ordering Defendant to make payment on delinquent withdrawal liability assessed by the Fund against Defendant. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages and interest assessed thereon and costs incurred in this action. Id. Plaintiffs seek damages as follows:
Plaintiffs further seek entry of an order compelling Defendant to produce documents required by ERISA Section 4219(a), (29 U.S.C. § 1399), to enable the Fund to evaluate liability of entities who may be under common control (ERISA Section 4001(b)(1)), (29 U.S.C. §1301(b)), and to determine whether any transactions to evade or avoid withdrawal liability have occurred (ERISA Section 4212(c), (29 U.S.C. §1392(c)). Id.
On October 13, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the matter. Defendant failed to appear at the hearing and has not otherwise responded to Plaintiffs' motion.
When considering whether to enter a default judgment, a court has "an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties." In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) ()
The District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 4301(c) and 502(e)(1) and (f) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. §§ 1451(c) and 1132(e)(1) and (f)). Plaintiffs seek to enforce the provisions of ERISA and the terms of the pension plan, seek redress for Defendant's violation of ERISA, and seek all other appropriate equitable or legal relief under ERISA.
Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant Hollis Glass, Inc. as it is a California corporation and an employer within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(...
To continue reading
Request your trial