Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust et al v. Greyrock Drilling & Piledriving LLC et al, No. 2:2023cv00063 - Document 20 (W.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 17 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court DIRECTS entry of default judgment in the amounts requested. Defendant Greyrock is ORDERED to provide its monthly remittance reports for November 2022 to March 2023 to Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of this Order. Signed by Judge Tana Lin.(MJV)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust et al v. Greyrock Drilling & Piledriving LLC et al Doc. 20 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 NORTHWEST CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY TRUST, et al., 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00063-TL ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT GREYROCK DRILLING & PILEDRIVING LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and DAVID SJOGREN, an individual, Defendants. 17 18 19 20 This is an action to recover delinquent contributions under the Employee Retirement 21 Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. This matter comes before the 22 Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 17). Having reviewed the 23 Motion and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 7 1 I. Plaintiffs are five trust funds that are collectively known as the Northwest Carpenters 2 3 BACKGROUND Trusts (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.6) and are comprised of the following: 1. Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust, a Taft-Hartley trust 1 that provides “Employee Welfare Benefit Plans, including the provision of hospital, medical, dental, vision, disability or death benefits and any other similar benefits, or any combination thereof” for eligible employees and their beneficiaries (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.1); 4 5 6 2. Northwest Carpenters Retirement Trust, a Taft-Hartley trust that provides “Employee Pension Benefit Plans, including the provision of retirement and associated death benefits” for eligible employees and their beneficiaries (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.2); 7 8 9 3. Northwest Carpenters Individual Account Pension Trust, a Taft-Hartley trust that provides “Employee Pension Benefit Plans, including retirement plans funded by employee contributions” or eligible employees and their beneficiaries (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.3); 10 11 4. Northwest Carpenters Vacation Trust, a Taft-Hartley trust that provides “Employee Welfare Benefit Plans, including the provision of vacation benefits” or eligible employees and their beneficiaries (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.4); 12 13 5. Carpenters-Employers Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund of WashingtonIdaho, a Taft-Hartley trust that provides a fund created to defray, in whole or in part, costs of apprenticeship or other training programs for the education of apprentices and journeymen carpenters. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.5. 14 15 16 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Greyrock Drilling and Piledriving LLC (“Greyrock”), led by 17 Defendant David Sjogren as its president, is party to a Region-Wide Compliance Agreement 18 (“Agreement”) by which it is required to make fringe benefit contributions to Plaintiffs and is 19 otherwise bound by agreements with each Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3.1–3.2, 3.5; Dkt. No. 18 20 ¶¶ 17–18 (Declaration of Michael Coty); Dkt. No. 18 at 11–13 (Agreement). Defendant 21 Greyrock agreed to provide monthly reports and contributions by a specified time. Dkt. No. 1 22 23 1 24 Taft-Hartley trusts are joint labor-management trust funds created pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5), and subject to the provisions of ERISA. ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 2 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 7 1 ¶¶ 3.6–3.10; Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 5–7; id. at 146, 196–97, 246, 297–98, 323. It also agreed to pay 2 liquidated damages and interest, as well as the costs of collection including attorney fees and 3 costs, for all delinquent contributions. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3.6–3.10; Dkt. No. 18 ¶¶ 12–15; id. at 147, 4 197–98, 247–48, 298–99, 323–24. Specifically, it agreed to pay liquidated damages of 12% of 5 the total delinquent contributions and interest of no less than 7% per annum from the 15th day of 6 the calendar month in which the contributions became due. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Greyrock failed to provide certain required monthly 7 8 reports and to pay required fringe benefit contributions for covered work performed by 9 Greyrock’s employees. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 3.11–3.12. On or about December 8, 2022, Defendant 10 Greyrock belatedly provided reports for March and April 2021, September 2021 through January 11 2022, and April 2022 through October 2022 (collectively, “the Listed Reports Period”). Id. 12 ¶ 3.13. However, those reports are characterized as “unfunded” because no payment of 13 contribution accompanied the reports. Id. Defendant Greyrock has failed to provide Northwest 14 Carpenters Trust with the November 2022 remittance report and fringe benefits payment, which 15 was due on or before December 15, 2022. Id. ¶ 3.14. On February 8, 2023, Defendant Greyrock made a payment to Plaintiffs for the delinquent 16 17 fringe benefit contributions for the Listed Reports Period. Dkt. No. 18 ¶ 22. However, Defendant has 18 still not provided: (1) $11,695.44 in assessed liquidated damages for the Listed Reports Period (Dkt. 19 No. 18 ¶ 22); (2) $6,437.35 in accrued prejudgment interests for the Listed Reports Period, id.; 20 (3) contribution shortages of $870.39 in fringe benefit contributions for July 2022 and $545.00 in 21 401(k) contributions for October 2022 (for a total of $1,415.39) (id. ¶¶ 21–22); and (4) remittance 22 reports and contribution payments for November 2022 through March 2023. 2 Id. ¶ 23. 23 2 24 The delinquent contribution amount is unknown for this period without examining the remittance reports. Dkt. No. 18 ¶ 24. ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 3 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 7 1 Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant Greyrock violated the terms of the Agreement 2 and of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), § 1145. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 4.1–4.6. Plaintiffs also allege that 3 Defendant Sjogren breached his fiduciary duty and his actions amounted to conversion under 4 Washington state law. Id. ¶¶ 4.7–4.15. Both Defendants were properly served but have failed to 5 appear. Dkt. Nos. 10–11. Plaintiffs moved for and obtained an entry of default. Dkt. Nos. 12–14. 6 With evidentiary support, Plaintiffs now ask the Court to enter default judgment in their 7 favor, to order Defendant Greyrock to provide monthly remittance reports for November 2022 8 through March 2023 (Dkt. No. 17-1 at 2), and to award them with interest: (1) $19,548.18, consisting 9 of $1,415.39 in fringe benefit contributions, $11,695.44 in liquidated damages, and $6,437.35 in 10 accrued, prejudgment interest (Dkt. No. 18 ¶ 24); (2) $660.13 for amounts withheld from employee 11 paychecks but not remitted to Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 18 at 391); and (3) $7,600.00 in attorney fees and 12 $610.00 in costs (Dkt. No. 17 at 8; Dkt. No. 19 ¶ 9). Plaintiffs also ask the Court to set the post- 13 judgment interest rate at 12% in accordance with the Agreement. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3.6–3.10. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A court’s decision to enter a default judgment is discretionary. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 16 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Default judgment is “ordinarily disfavored,” because courts 17 prefer to decide “cases on their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 18 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). When considering whether to exercise discretion in entering default 19 judgments, courts may consider a variety of factors, including: 20 21 22 23 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of a plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 4 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 5 of 7 1 Id. at 1471–72. Courts reviewing motions for default judgment must accept the allegations in the 2 complaint as true, except facts related to the amount of damages. Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 3 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). 4 5 III. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 6 ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3), 1145. The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the 7 Washington state claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Finally, the Court finds that venue is proper 8 because Plaintiffs are administered in this District and because Defendants reside or may be 9 found in this District. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). 10 Considering the Eitel factors, the Court finds that entry of default judgment is proper. 11 Plaintiffs and the covered employees would be prejudiced absent an order of default judgment 12 for the amounts due to the Plaintiff trusts for various bargained-for benefits and the costs of 13 collecting them. Also, taking the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint as true and considering the 14 supporting materials, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled meritorious claims for delinquent 15 contributions and failure to remit assets and dues. There is likely no dispute of material facts, as 16 Plaintiffs have provided evidence that is likely difficult to be rebutted. Finally, there is no 17 evidence to suggest the default was due to excusable neglect, as Defendants were served with 18 process and failed to appear. Therefore, notwithstanding the strong policy under the Federal 19 Rules of Civil Procedure that claims be resolved through contested litigation, the Court finds that 20 the Eitel factors favor entry of default judgment. 21 The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to confirm the 22 following amounts are due under the Agreement: (1) $19,548.18 from Defendant Greyrock, 23 consisting of $1,415.39 in fringe benefit contributions, $11,695.44 in liquidated damages, and 24 $6,437.35 in accrued, prejudgment interest (Dkt. No. 18 ¶ 24); (2) $660.13 from Defendant ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 5 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 6 of 7 1 Sjogren, jointly and severally with Defendant Greyrock, for amounts withheld from employee 2 paychecks but not remitted to Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 18 at 391); and (3) $7,600.00 in attorney fees 3 and $610.00 in costs (Dkt. No. 19 ¶ 9). The Court also finds that post-judgment interest shall 4 accrue at 12% per annum in accordance with the Agreement. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3.6–3.10. 5 6 7 Further, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees under the criteria outlined in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.: 12 (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. 13 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 14 U.S. 557 (1992). Plaintiffs have supported each of these factors in the declaration of counsel (see 15 Dkt. No. 19), and the Court finds this evidence persuasive. Plaintiffs have provided a sufficiently 16 precise accounting to justify the request of $7,600.00 in attorney fees and $610.00 in costs. 17 These appear reasonable in light of the experience and skill of counsel, the rates requested and 18 hours expended, and the efforts and results achieved. 8 9 10 11 19 Finally, the Court finds that the equitable relief Plaintiff seeks (the provision of 20 delinquent remittance reports) is also appropriate. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B) (authorizing 21 civil action by participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary “to obtain other appropriate equitable relief” 22 to redress violations or enforce provisions of ERISA plan); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E) 23 (authorizing award of “such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate” in 24 action where judgment is awarded in favor of ERISA plan). ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 6 Case 2:23-cv-00063-TL Document 20 Filed 06/14/23 Page 7 of 7 1 2 IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. 3 No. 17). The Court DIRECTS entry of default judgment in the amounts requested. Defendant 4 Greyrock is ORDERED to provide its monthly remittance reports for November 2022 to March 5 2023 to Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of this Order. 6 Dated this 14th day of June 2023. A 7 8 Tana Lin United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT - 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
