Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds…
Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds v. National Drywall Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-01715
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Trustees of the Drywall Tapers v. National Drywall Inc.: Judge Tarnofsky ordered plaintiffs to submit materials supporting a renewed default-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and National Drywall Inc., which had not answered the complaint or amended complaint.
What happened
In Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No. 1974 Benefit Funds v. National Drywall Inc., the plaintiffs alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. National Drywall did not answer the complaint or amended complaint after being served.
The court directed the plaintiffs to seek a new certificate of default and file materials supporting a default-judgment motion by September 9, 2024. The materials must address the amount of damages, jurisdiction, liability, attorney fees, service on National Drywall, and whether the court should decide damages using written submissions alone.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not enter a default judgment in this order. Instead, she set requirements and deadlines for the plaintiffs’ requested default judgment and allowed National Drywall to respond by September 25, 2024.
The detailed version
- Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds… · No. 1:24-cv-01715
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 23, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on March 7, 2024. National Drywall was served on March 12, 2024, but did not answer by the April 2 deadline. The Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default on April 26, 2024.
The plaintiffs later obtained permission to file an amended complaint. They mailed the amended complaint to National Drywall’s last known business address on July 15, 2024. The opinion states that National Drywall was required to respond by August 5, 2024, but did not do so.
Order concerning default judgment
The court ordered the plaintiffs to seek a new certificate of default and file their motion for default judgment and supporting materials by September 9, 2024. The court did not grant or deny default judgment in this order.
The required proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must address all damages and other monetary relief, and must state the exact amount and terms of any requested relief. For actual damages, the plaintiffs must provide admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Their proposed factual findings must identify the evidence supporting each finding and explain how the requested damages relate to each legal claim.
The plaintiffs must also establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over National Drywall and subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The court warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the request for a damages judgment. In addition, the plaintiffs must show that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, treated as true after default, establish National Drywall’s liability for each asserted claim.
Any request for attorney fees must include authenticated contemporaneous time records, information about each timekeeper’s work and qualifications, and evidence of costs and expenses. Before filing, the plaintiffs must mail National Drywall the proposed findings, supporting materials, and a copy of the order, then file proof of mailing.
National Drywall was permitted to serve and file any responses by September 25, 2024. The court stated that it may decide the damages inquiry based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient and identify the expected witnesses and evidence. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.