Board of Trustees v. Electric
Board of Trustees, I.B.E.W. Local 332 Pension Plan Part A v. Delucchi Electric, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-06456
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Board of Trustees v. Delucchi Electric, Judge Davila granted default judgment for $108,052.50 over unpaid pension-plan contributions.
The plaintiffs—Board of Trustees, I.B.E.W. Local 332 Pension Plan Part A and the other named plaintiffs—received a default judgment against Delucchi Electric, Inc. for $108,052.50.
What happened
Board of Trustees, I.B.E.W. Local 332 Pension Plan Part A v. Delucchi Electric, Inc. involved an agreement requiring Delucchi Electric to make contributions to trust funds. The company did not make the required contributions and did not respond after being served with the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs sought payment for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and interest under the agreement and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Because Delucchi Electric neither answered nor appeared, the court evaluated whether default judgment was appropriate and found that the plaintiffs’ claims and requested amounts were adequately supported.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in the amount of $108,052.50. Judge Edward J. Davila awarded $90,594.20 in damages, $9,059.42 in liquidated damages, and $8,398.88 in interest.
The detailed version
- Board of Trustees v. Electric · No. 5:19-cv-06456
- Edward Davila
- June 1, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that Delucchi Electric, Inc. entered into a collective bargaining agreement requiring it to make contributions to trust funds managed by the plaintiffs. The agreement also provided for liquidated damages and interest if contributions were unpaid. The plaintiffs alleged that Delucchi Electric failed to make the required contributions.
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on October 8, 2019, and served Delucchi Electric on November 17, 2019. Delucchi Electric did not answer or otherwise appear. The clerk entered default, and the plaintiffs moved for default judgment.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that it had federal-question jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims invoked federal law, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and that it had general personal jurisdiction over Delucchi Electric because the company was incorporated and had its principal place of business in California.
The court applied the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including possible prejudice to the plaintiffs, the merits and sufficiency of their claims, the amount of money at stake, the likelihood of factual disputes, possible excusable neglect, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits. The court found that the factors supported default judgment because Delucchi Electric had not appeared, the plaintiffs had no other recourse in the action, the issues were straightforward, and there were no facts indicating excusable neglect.
The court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged an ERISA claim. Under ERISA, an employer obligated by a plan or collective bargaining agreement to contribute to a multiemployer plan must make those contributions. The plaintiffs alleged that the trusts were multiemployer plans, that the agreement required Delucchi Electric to contribute, and that the company failed to make the payments.
The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 185 for breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The court concluded that the requested amounts were tied to the alleged nonpayment and were supported by the agreement and the plaintiffs’ evidence. In calculating the award, the court used the contribution amounts in the transmittals because the contribution-history exhibit contained a $0.14 omission for June 2019.
Award and Disposition
The court awarded $90,594.20 in unpaid contributions, $9,059.42 in liquidated damages, and $8,398.88 in interest, for a total of $108,052.50. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in that amount under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.