The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
IRON WORKERS ST. LOUIS DISTRICT )
COUNCIL PENSION TRUST FUND et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:21-cv-01452-SEP
)
TINA M. HUFKER and MARK EDLIN, )
individually and d/b/a )
T&M CONSTRUCTION, )
)
Defendants. MEM ORAND U )M AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment. Doc. 14. For
the reasons set forth below, the MoFtAioCTnS i sA NgDra BnAteCdKG. ROUND
On December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, which brings one count for
breach of a collective bargaining agreement. Doc. 1. The Complaint alleges that Defendants
are signatories to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 577.
Id.
Doc. 1 ¶ 6, 11. Under the CBA, Defendants were bound to the Trust Agreements, which
Id.
governed Local 557’s Trust Funds. ¶ 12. The Trustees of the Trust Funds adopted a
Collection Policy that authorized the Trustees to conduct audits. ¶ 13. Pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Trust Agreements, and the
Collection policy, the Trustees would assess a one-time charge of ten percent against
employers who failed to submit their monthly contribution reports and contributions to
the Trustees by the fifteenth of the month following the month in which the work was
Id.
performed. Doc. 1 ¶ 14. On request, employers were also required to furnish the Trustees
with payroll records and data in order for the Trustees to conduct a payroll audit. ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs requested to schedule a payroll compliance audit with Defendants for the period
Id.
Id.
of June 1, 2021, to the time of filing. ¶ 17. Defendants failed to comply with the audit
request. ¶ 18.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint requested relief in the form of an order compelling Defendants
Id.
to produce “all records necessary for the auditors to complete a payroll compliance audit
for the period of June 1, 2021, through the date [Defendants] submit to the audit.” ¶ A.
Plaintiffs also requested damages for the following amounts:
. . . an unknown amount for any and all contributions and union dues revealed
in the payroll compliance audit, along with resulting liquidated damages and
interest;
. . . an unknown amount for any and all audit fees associated with the payroll
compliance audit . . .;
. . . any other contributions, union dues, liquidated damages, and interest that
are found to be due and owing in addition to the amounts referenced . . . above;
Id.
. . . reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the Plaintiffs . . .;
¶¶ B-E.
Defendants were served with a summons and copy of the Complaint on December
22, 2021, and ordered to file a responsive pleading within 21 days of service. Doc. 10 ¶¶ 3-
5; Docs. 6, 7. Defendants did not respond in any manner. On February 2, 2022, the Court
ordered Plaintiffs to file motions for entry of default and default judgment or dismiss their
th
case. Doc. 8. On February 14 , Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default, Doc. 9,
th th
which was granted on February 17 . Doc. 11. On February 16 , Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Default Judgment, Doc. 10. That motion was for only partial default judgment and not
final judgment, because it sought an audit to determine additional amounts due and did not
contain a damages calculation; thus, it did not seek a judgment that adjudicated all of the
1
rights and liabilities of all parties.
Plaintiff’s filed this Amended Motion for Default Judgment on May 20, 2022. Doc.
Id.
14. The Motion represents that Plaintiffs completed their audit of Defendants’ payroll
st
records on April 1 . ¶ 10. The audit revealed that, between June 1, 2021, and
September 30, 2021, Defend ants failed to remit $7,125.04 in required contributions to the
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that “any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
Id.
Id.
trust funds. ¶ 11. Based on the unpaid contributions, under the terms of the CBA,
see also
Defendants are also liable for $648.38 in interest and $712.50 in liquidated damages.
¶¶ 12, 13; 29 U.S.CI .d §. 1132(g)(2). Plaintiffs alsos re ee quest $9,049.65 in statutory
attorneys’ fees and costs. ¶ 13; DocL. E1G4A-L2 S (TPAlN. EDxA.R 2D) ; 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default judgment is appropriate 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.” After default has
Greater St. Louis Const. Laborers Welfare Fund v. AbatePro, Inc
been entered, “the allegations of the complaint, except as to the amount of damages are
see also Marshall v. Baggett
taken as true.” ., 2018 WL
5849980 at *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 6, 2018) (quotation omitted); ,
616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2010). The liability of a defendant is established upon entry of
Brown v. Kenron Aluminum & Glass Corp
default; thus, once default is entered, the plaintiff is not required to establish its right to
recover. ., 477 F.2d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 1973). The
only remaining issue before a court uponD dISeCfaUuSSltIO, tNh en, is the amount of damages.
In an action for delinquent fringe benefits under ERISA, a plaintiff is entitled to
recover all of the principal contributions owed, plus interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys’ fees, and costs. 29 U.S.C.§ 1132(g)(2). The intent is to promote the prompt
See Carpenters & Joiners Welfare Fund v. Gittleman Corp
payment of contributions and assist plans in recovering the costs incurred in connection
with delinquencies. ., 857 F.2d
476, 479 n.4 (8th Cir. 1988). Unpaid contributions, interest, and liquidated damages are
Serv. Employees Int’l Union Nat’l Indus. Pension Fund v.
“considered sums certain because their calculations are mandated under § 1132(g)(2) of
LTP Generations
ERISA and by party agreements.”
, 2019 WL 1423686, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2019) (internal quotation
marks omitted). When a union pension plan seeks contributions pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement and default judgment is entered, “ERISA provides that the court
Serv.
must award: (1) the unpaid contributions; (2) interest on the unpaid contributions; (3)
Employees Int’l Union Nat’l Indus. Pension Fund
liquidated damages; (4) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action.”
, 2019 WL 1423686, at *6 (citations
Accepted as true, the allegations in the Complaint establish that Defendants have
breached the terms of the CBA. AbatePro, Inc., 2018 WL 5849980 at *1. And because
Defendants are in default, they may not contest those facts. Brown, 477 F.2d at 531. The
Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment, and to the damages
requested in paragraphs B and D of the Complaint, in the amounts stated in the instant
Motion. See Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 14 Jf 11,12. Finally, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Affidavit of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Doc. 14-2, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’
fees are fair and reasonable.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment,
Doc. [14], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Tina M. Hufker and Mark Edlin are
jointly and severally liable in the aggregate amount of $17,535.57, itemized as follows:
1. $7,125.04 in unpaid contributions;
2. $648.38 in interest;
3. $712.50 in liquidated damages;
4. $9,049.65 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. 10, is
DENIED as moot.
Dated this 29 day of June, 2022.
had Li
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE