Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Crowe Construction Inc ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRICKLAYERS & TROWEL TRADES
INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 22-0047 (CKK)
v.
CROWE CONSTRUCTION INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(July 18, 2023)
Plaintiff Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund (“IPF” or “Plaintiff”)
filed a [1] Complaint against Defendant Crowe Construction Inc. (“Crowe” or “Defendant”),
alleging that Defendant failed to submit monthly remittance reports and pay monthly benefit
contributions to Plaintiff as prescribed by the Collective Bargaining Agreements and IPF’s
Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust. Although Defendant was properly served,
Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint in a timely manner. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a
[11] Motion for Entry of Default and the Clerk entered [12] Default against Defendant on August
12, 2022. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s [15] Motion for Default Judgment (“Mot.
for Default J.”). Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s submissions, the attachments thereto, 1 the
1
The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents:
• Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”);
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default, ECF No. 11 (“Mot. for Entry of Default”);
• Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 15 (“Mot. for Default J.”);
• Declaration of David F. Stupar, ECF No. 15-3 (“Stupar Decl.”);
• Declaration of Attorney’s Fees and Legal Costs, ECF No. 15-3 (“Decl. of Attorney’s
Fees).
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that holding oral argument in this action would
not be of assistance in rendering a decision. See LCvR 7(f).
1
relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion
for Default Judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff provides retirement and related benefits to individuals working in the
construction industry as bricklayers and related tradespersons; it is organized under the
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §
1022(1). Compl. ¶ 1; Mot. for Default J. at 3. The benefits that IPF provides are financed by
contributions from employers who are parties to collective bargaining agreements with the
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“BAC”) and its local unions. Mot.
for Default J. at 3 (citing Stupar Decl. ¶ 3). One such employer is Defendant Crowe
Construction Inc., a contractor or subcontractor in the construction industry. Id. A series of
agreements, collectively known as the Collective Bargaining Agreements, govern Crowe’s
responsibility to submit monthly remittance reports and pay monthly benefit contributions to IPF
for each hour of covered work its employees perform within the geographic jurisdictions of BAC
Local Union No. 5 Ohio (“Local 5, Ohio”) and BAC Local Union No. 7 Ohio (“Local 7, Ohio”).
Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 7–8; Mot. for Default J. at 4.
The Collective Bargaining Agreements incorporate the Amended Restated Agreement and
Declaration of Trust (“Trust Agreement”), which is one of several documents that governs IPF.
Compl. ¶ 1; Stupar Decl. ¶ 2. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Trustees of IPF have adopted
the General Collection Procedures for the Central Collection Unit of the Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers (“Collection Procedures”) to govern the collection of employer contributions and
reports. Stupar Decl. ¶ 4. Per the Trust Agreement, the Collection Procedures, and ERISA, if
Defendant fails to make these contributions by the fifteenth day of the month following the work
2
month, then it is required to pay interest at a rate of fifteen percent per annum from the due date
of each monthly payment, plus the greater of either an additional computation of interest
(calculated at the same fifteen percent per annum) or liquidated damages (calculated at the rate
of twenty percent of the delinquent contributions), plus the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
recovering the delinquent amounts. Compl. ¶¶ 13–14; Stupar Decl. ¶ 5.
In violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, Defendant reported but failed to
pay Plaintiff a total of $34,030.30 in contributions for work performed in the jurisdictions of
Local 7, Ohio and Local, 5 Ohio during various months within the period of April 2019 to
February 2022. Mot. for Default J. at 8. Further, Defendant failed to report and pay
contributions to Plaintiff for work performed during various months between July 2020 to
September 2022 in the jurisdictions of Local 5, Ohio and Local 7, Ohio. Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13.
On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendant. Mot. for
Default J. at 2; see also Compl. In addition to the unpaid contributions Plaintiff claims it is
owed, Plaintiff also contends it is entitled to prejudgment interest of fifteen percent per annum
from the due date of each unpaid monthly contribution, pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(B) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(B), the Trust Agreement, and the Collection Procedures. Mot.
for Default J. at 9. Next, Plaintiff argues it is also entitled to an award of the greater of either
additional interest (calculated at the rate of fifteen percent per annum from the due date of each
payment) or liquidated damages (calculated at the rate of twenty percent of the delinquent
contributions), as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to ERISA, the Trust
Agreement, and the Collection Procedures. Id. at 10. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel
Defendant to submit outstanding remittance reports and any corresponding contributions for
3
work performed in Local 7, Ohio and Local 5, Ohio for a variety of months during the period of
July 2020 to September 2022. Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13.
On June 1, 2022, Defendant’s statutory registered agent was served. Mot. for Default J.
at 2; see also Affidavit of Service, ECF No. 9. After Defendant failed to respond to the
Complaint by the deadline, Plaintiff filed a [11] Motion for Entry of Default Judgment on August
11, 2022, and the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant on August 12, 2022. See ECF
No. 12. On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Default Judgment,
requesting that the Clerk enter judgment by default against Defendant in the amount of
$58,177.33. See Mot. for Default J. at 2.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that the clerk of the court “must enter [a]
party’s default” when a “party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed
to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a). Once a default has been entered by the clerk, a court may enter a default judgment against
that party pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). To warrant default judgment, the
defendant “must be considered a ‘totally unresponsive’ party, and its default plainly willful,
reflected by its failure to respond to the summons and complaint, the entry of default, or the
motion for default judgment.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trade Indus. Pension Fund v. Auxier
Drywall, LLC, 531 F. Supp. 2d 56, 57 (D.D.C. 2008) (ESH) (quoting Gutierrez v. Berg
Contracting Inc., No. 99-3044 (TAF), 2000 WL 331721, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2000)). Where
there is a complete “absence of any request to set aside the default or suggestion by the
defendant that it has a meritorious defense, it is clear that the standard for default judgment has
been satisfied.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Bentley,
4
756 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2010) (CKK) (same). Then, the “determination of whether default
judgment is appropriate is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Auxier Drywall, LLC,
531 F. Supp. 2d at 57 (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
Upon entry of default by the clerk of the court, the “defaulting defendant is deemed to
admit every well-pleaded allegation in the complaint.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trade Indus.
Pension Fund v. R.W. Armine Drywall Co., 239 F. Supp. 2d 26, 30 (D.D.C. 2002)
(RMU) (citation omitted). “Although the default establishes a defendant’s liability, the court is
required to make an independent determination of the sum to be awarded unless the amount of
damages is certain.” Id. (citing Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001) (RMU)).
In ruling on such a motion, “the court may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to
determine the appropriate sum for the default judgment.” Id. (citing United Artists Corp. v.
Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)). The moving party is “entitled to all reasonable
inferences from the evidence offered.” Id. (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
In the present case, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant, and
therefore the factual allegations in the Complaint are taken as true. See R.W. Amrine Drywall
Co., 239 F. Supp. 2d at 30. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to
support its claim against Defendant. Plaintiff is thus entitled to default judgment as to
Defendant’s liability for its failure to timely submit remittance reports and pay contributions to
Plaintiff, as required under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreements. Plaintiff seeks
both monetary and equitable relief; the Court considers each request in turn below.
5
A. Monetary Damages
Pursuant to Section 515 of ERISA, “[e]very employer who is obligated to make
contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a
collectively bargained agreement shall . . . make such contributions in accordance with the terms
and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145. When an employer fails to
make such contributions, ERISA provides that the fiduciary for a plan may bring an action and
obtain a mandatory award for the plan consisting of:
(A) the unpaid contributions,
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,
(C) an amount equal to the greater of –
(i) interest on the unpaid contributions; or
(ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of
20 percent (or such higher percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State
law) of the amount determined by the Court under Subparagraph (a),
(D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the defendant,
and
(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
Id. § 1132(g)(2). Interest is calculated using the rate provided under the plan, or, if none, the rate
prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Id.Plaintiff has provided the Court with affidavits to support a damages award of
$58,177.33. See Stupar Decl.; Decl. of Attorney’s Fees. First, Plaintiff has sufficiently
demonstrated that it is entitled to $34,030.30 in unpaid contributions for work performed during
various months between April 2019 and February 2022. See Mot. for Default J. at 8. This
includes $21,558.56 in contributions for work performed in the jurisdiction of Local 7, Ohio, and
$12,471.74 in contributions for work performed in the jurisdiction of Local 5, Ohio. Id. The
specific amount of contributions owed was determined based on the hours and contributions
Defendant reported, but failed to pay, and was summarized by Plaintiff in calculation sheets
included as exhibits to the Declaration of David F. Stupar. See Stupar Decl. Ex. 5–6.
6
In addition, Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that it is entitled to $8,262.42 in
prejudgment interest on unpaid contributions pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(B) of ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(B), the Trust Agreement, and the Collection Procedures. See Mot. for
Default J. at 9. This amount is based on an interest rate of fifteen percent per annum, as provided
for in the Trust Agreement and the Collection Procedures, and is calculated from the due date of
the unpaid contributions through October 6, 2022. Stupar Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. This includes
$4,312.52 in interest on reported but unpaid contributions for work performed in the jurisdiction
of Local 7, Ohio, and $3,949.90 in interest on reported but unpaid contributions in the
jurisdiction of Local 5, Ohio. Id.Plaintiff has also demonstrated that it is entitled to $8,261.61 in additional interest on the
unpaid contributions. See Mot. for Default J. at 10. Pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(C) of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C)(ii), the Trust Agreement, and the Collection Procedures, Plaintiff is
entitled to an award of the greater of either additional interest (calculated at the rate of fifteen
percent per annum from the due date of each payment) or liquidated damages (calculated at the
rate of twenty percent of the delinquent contributions). Stupar Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff is owed
$3,949.90 in additional interest for work performed in the jurisdiction of Local 5, Ohio, as that
amount is greater than the liquidated damages.2 Plaintiff also seeks $4,311.71 in liquidated
damages for the work performed in Local 7, Ohio. Id. ¶ 10. Per the Court’s calculations, the
2
Defendant owes Plaintiff contributions in the amount of $12,471.74 for work performed in the
jurisdiction of Local 5, Ohio, as noted above. Stupar Decl. ¶ 12. Additional interest, calculated
as fifteen percent per annum on the unpaid contributions from the due date through October 6,
2022, equals $3,949.90, whereas liquidated damages, calculated as twenty percent of the
delinquent contributions, equals $2,494.34. Id. Since Plaintiff is entitled to the greater of the
two values, Plaintiff will be awarded additional interest totaling $3,949.90, in lieu of liquidated
damages. Id.7
amount of additional interest is greater than liquidated damages by eighty-one cents,3 yet
Plaintiff asks for the smaller amount of liquidated damages. See id.; Mot. for Default J. at 10.
This appears to be done in error; however, in light of Plaintiff’s request, and considering the
small, almost negligible monetary difference between the two amounts, the Court will award
Plaintiff the amount expressly sought in their Motion: $4,311.71 in liquidated damages for the
work performed in Local 7, Ohio.
Finally, Plaintiff has adequately demonstrated it is entitled to $7,623.00 in attorneys’ fees
and costs, pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(D) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), the Trust
Agreement, and the Collection Procedures. See Mot. for Default J. at 10. Plaintiff provided a
[15-3] Declaration of Attorneys’ Fees and Legal Costs demonstrating that its attorneys expended
20.4 hours on this action at an hourly rate of $320.00 through March 31, 2022, and at a rate of
$330.00 from April 1, 2022 through the present, and incurred $402.00 in filing fees and $550.00
for service of process. Decl. of Attorney’s Fees at 2. These hourly rates are significantly below
the applicable $914.00 and $465.00 hourly rates established in the current Laffey matrix. See id.(citing Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F. Supp. 2d 8, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (GK)). Therefore,
the Court finds that these rates are reasonable for the services rendered and shall award the
attorneys’ fees and costs requested.
B. Equitable Relief
Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief in the form of an order requiring Defendant to submit
all outstanding reports and contributions to Plaintiff, pursuant to Section 502(g)(2)(E) of ERISA,
3
Defendant owes Plaintiff $21,558.56 for work performed in the jurisdiction of Local 7, Ohio.
Stupar Decl. ¶ 10. Additional interest, calculated as fifteen percent per annum on the delinquent
contributions from the due date through October 6, 2022, equals $4,312.52, whereas liquidated
damages, calculated as twenty percent of the delinquent contributions, equals $4,311.71. See id.8
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E). Mot. for Default J. at 12. Per the Collective Bargaining Agreements,
the Trust Agreement, and the Collection Procedures, Defendant is required to submit remittance
reports and contributions to the Plaintiff on a monthly basis. See id. at 13. Defendant is aware of
this obligation, as it has previously submitted remittance reports and contributions to Plaintiff.
See Stupar Decl. ¶ 9. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it is
entitled to the requested equitable relief under the terms of the relevant agreements. The Court
shall therefore order Defendant to submit remittance reports and any corresponding contributions
for work performed in the jurisdiction of Local 7, Ohio during the months of July 2020 through
July 2021 and March 2022 through September 2022, and in the jurisdiction of Local 5, Ohio
during the months of March 2022 through September 2022.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs’ [15] Motion for
Judgment by Default. The Court shall award damages in the amount of $58,177.33, as well as
order that Defendant provide Plaintiff with outstanding remittance reports and any corresponding
contributions. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
9