Heat and Frost Insulators of Northern California Local Union No. 16 Health and…
Heat and Frost Insulators of Northern California Local Union No. 16 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Rhodium Integrated Services
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-05011
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Heat and Frost Insulators v. Rhodium Integrated Services, Judge Chhabria granted default judgment against Rhodium and Bold Construction.
The plaintiffs—employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and trustees—and the defaulting defendants, Rhodium Integrated Services and Bold Construction.
What happened
Heat and Frost Insulators of Northern California Local Union No. 16 Health and Welfare Trust Fund and related plaintiffs alleged that Rhodium Integrated Services and its successor, Bold Construction, failed to make required employee-benefit-plan contributions and submit to an audit. Both defendants were served but did not appear, and the clerk entered default.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Rhodium and Bold. It found that the plaintiffs would likely be unable to recover without judgment, their allegations were supported by the record, the amount at stake was relatively small at $58,131.13, and there was no apparent reason excusing the defendants’ failure to respond. The court also said the complaint gave notice that damages could include delinquent contributions incurred through judgment.
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that a separate judgment would follow. The opinion does not state the terms of that separate judgment.
The detailed version
- Heat and Frost Insulators of Northern California Local Union No. 16 Health and… · No. 3:22-cv-05011
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs are employee benefit plans and their fiduciaries and trustees. They alleged that Rhodium Integrated Services and its successor, Bold Construction, failed to make contributions required by collective bargaining and trust agreements and failed to submit to an audit. Rhodium and Bold were properly served in September 2022, but neither appeared. The clerk therefore entered default against them.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the factors from Eitel v. McCool for deciding whether to enter default judgment. It found that the plaintiffs would likely be prejudiced because they probably could not recover what was owed without a judgment; the allegations were adequately pleaded and supported by the record; the amount at stake, $58,131.13, was relatively small; there were likely no material factual disputes because the defendants did not respond; and there was no reason to believe the default resulted from excusable neglect. Because the defendants had not appeared, the court said a decision on the merits was impossible.
The court also held that default judgment was appropriate even though the plaintiffs sought damages for contributions incurred after the complaint was filed. It concluded that the complaint adequately notified the defendants that they could be liable for delinquent contributions through the time of judgment.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for default judgment against Rhodium and Bold. It stated that a separate judgment would follow. The opinion does not specify the terms of that separate judgment.
Judge
The order was signed by Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.