The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
NORTHWEST CARPENTERS HEALTH
AND SECURITY TRUST; NORTHWEST
CARPENTERS RETIREMENT TRUST; Case No. 6:23-cv-00835-MC
and NORTHWEST CARPENTERS
VACATION TRUST, AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
D&B INTERIORS LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company,
Defendants,
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiffs Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust, Northwest Carpenters
Retirement Trust, Northwest Carpenters Individual Account Pension Trust, Northwest
Carpenters Vacation Trust, and Carpenters-Employers Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund
of Washington-Idaho (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for Default Judgment, attorney fees, and
costs. See ECF No. 13. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion, ECF No. 13, is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs brought this action on June 8, 2023, and Defendant D&B Interiors LLC
(“Defendant”) received personal service on June 30, 2023. More than two months have now
passed, and Defendant has not filed any responsive pleadings. As a result, any allegations in the
1 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
Complaint that do not relate to the amount of damages are deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(6). Plaintiffs are joint labor-management Trust Funds organized under the Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. §186(c). The Trusts provide healthcare, pension,
defined contribution, vacation, and training benefits under the Employee Retirement Security
Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq. Defendants entered into a Compliance Agreement in
2016 with Plaintiffs, in which Defendants agreed to report and make monthly fringe benefit
contributions to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed this action to enforce Defendant’s failure to timely provide monthly
remittance reports to the Plaintiffs and to collect the delinquent fringe benefit contributions that
Defendants failed to pay. Under the Compliance Agreement and ERISA,1 Defendant must pay
the delinquent contributions, interest on the delinquent contributions, liquidated damages, and
attorney fees. Plaintiffs also seek post-judgment interest.
STANDARDS
A defendant must file a responsive pleading within 21 days of being served, or within 60
days if the defendant has timely waived service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). “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, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 55(a).
After entering an order of default, the district court has discretion to issue a default
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 937 (2008). In exercising its discretion, the court may consider:
1 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1145.
2 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 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 favoring decisions on the
merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
The court has “considerable leeway as to what it may require as a prerequisite to the entry
of a default judgment.” Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (per
curiam) (footnote omitted). The court may take the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations
as true, other than the amount of damages. Id. at 917-18 (citation omitted); DIRECTV, 503 F.3d
at 854 (citations omitted). On the other hand, a “‘defendant is not held to admit facts that are not
well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.’” DIRECTV, 503 F.3d at 854 (quoting Nishimatsu
Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).
DISCUSSION
I. Entry of Default
Defendant received personal service on June 30, 2023, and more than 60 days have
passed without Defendant filing any responsive pleadings. Defendant has not filed any notice to
appear or provided this court any reason why an entry of default is not appropriate in this case.
Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend the current action, so the clerk must enter
Defendant’s default.
II. Entry of Default Judgment
In considering an entry of default judgment, this Court examines the seven factors laid
out in Eitel. To satisfy the first three factors, Plaintiffs must state a valid claim in a well-pleaded
complaint, for which the refusal to grant a default judgment would be prejudicial to Plaintiffs.
3 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs have established that Defendant failed to make contributions in accordance with the
Compliance Agreement that bound the company to a Master Labor Agreement. According to the
Compliance Agreement, Defendant was Defendant was requirement to timely report and pay
fringe benefit contributions to Plaintiffs, which it had failed to do at the time of filing. Fahey
Decl. at 6-8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs state a valid ERISA claim. In terms of prejudice to
Plaintiffs, if this Court does not enter a default judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor, Plaintiffs have no
other avenue to collect the delinquent contributions.
With regard to the fourth and fifth Eitel factors, the sum of money at stake in this action
is appropriate to the amount of contributions the Compliance Agreement, and there is no material
dispute concerning the terms of the Compliance Agreement. Finally, Defendant has not provided
this Court any explanation that would constitute excusable neglect. Although the seventh factor
favors decisions on the merits, Defendant’s inaction in this matter has made a decision on the
merits impossible. If the general policy in favor of a decision on the merits, standing alone,
outweighed the previous six Eitel factors, then defendants could always refuse to defend an
action and still avoid a default judgment. Therefore, the Eitel factors in this case support an entry
of default judgment.
III. Damages
Because the court accepts as true all allegations from the complaint except those relating
to the amount of damages, Plaintiffs must prove the amount of damages they seek in this action.
In an action to collect delinquent contributions under 29 U.S.C. § 1145, the ERISA statute
requires that the court award:
(A) the unpaid contributions,
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions,
4 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
(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 . . . of the amount determined by the court under
subparagraph (A),
(D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs[.]
29 U.S.C. § 1145(g)(2). Such an award is mandatory if: (1) the employer is delinquent at the
time the action is filed; (2) the district court had entered a judgment against the employer; and
(3) the plan must provide for such an award. Nw. Adm'rs, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 F.3d 253,
257 (9th Cir. 1996).
A. Unpaid Contributions
Plaintiffs submitted a detailed chart of the unpaid fringe benefit contribution payments
owed to the Trusts. See Fahey Decl. at 372; ECF No. 14. Plaintiff submitted declaration for
Kealsye Fahey, the Employer Labor Services Manager for the Northwest Carpenters Trusts. The
declaration includes unfunded remittance reports from the employer. Ms. Fahey calculated
$125,616.98 in fringe benefit contributions for the months of June 2022, and March 2023
through October 2023. Fahey Decl. at 372. Plaintiffs is entitled to these unpaid contributions
under 29 U.S.C. § 1145(g)(2)(A).
B. Interest on Unpaid Contributions
Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the unpaid contributions using the rate provided in the
CBA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1145(g)(2)(B). The Compliance Agreement establishes a rate of 12
percent per year until paid. Compl. at 5; ECF No. 1. Based on the monthly interest charges,
Plaintiffs are entitled to $12,961.35 in accrued prejudgment interest for the months of March
2022 through October 2023, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2)(B). Fahey Decl. at 372.
5 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
C. Liquidated Damages
Liquidated damages only apply “when (1) the fiduciary obtains a judgment in favor of the
plan, (2) unpaid contributions exist at the time of suit, and (3) the plan provides for liquidated
damages.” Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United Mech. Contractors,
Inc., 875 F.2d 212, 215 (9th Cir.1989) (emphasis in original). In this case, all the disputed funds
remain unpaid, and the Compliance Agreement provides for liquidated damages. Compl. at 5.
Therefore, ERISA provides that Plaintiffs are entitled to the greater of the interest on the unpaid
contributions or liquidated damages in an amount not greater than 20 percent of the unpaid
contributions. 29 U.S.C. § 1145(g)(2)(C). Plaintiff is entitled to $33,447.52 in liquidated
damages for the period March 2022 through June 2022, September 2022, and February 2023
through October 2023. Fahey Decl. at 372.
D. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the Compliance Agreement and
ERISA 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). Plaintiffs submitted an itemized fee statement with an hourly
breakdown of the time spent on this case and the total costs and expenses. See Maxwell Decl. at
1-4. I find the nearly 40 hours to be reasonable in light of the attorney’s efforts to identify and
documents the amount in delinquency and to draft numerous motions. The rate of $310 per hour
is reasonable in the Northwest market for attorneys of comparable skill and experience. The
costs on the fee statement properly account for the filing fee and postage, so Plaintiffs are
entitled to attorneys fees of $8,271.00. Plaintiffs are also entitled to costs of $437.00 relating to
filing of this action.
6 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
E. Post-Judgment Interest
Plaintiffs seek post-judgment interest at the Oregon statutory rate of 12 percent. Federal
law, however, governs the post-judgment interest rate. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155
F.3d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, post-judgment interest “shall be
calculated . . . at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week
preceding the date of the judgment.” The previous week’s auction price of 52-week treasury
bills, as posted by the Federal Reserve, was 4.83 percent.2
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for an Entry of Default, Default Judgment, and
attorney fees and costs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are entitled to:
a. $125,616.98 in unpaid contributions;
b. $12,961.35 in accrued prejudgment interest for the months of March 2022
through October 2023;
c. $33,447.52 in liquidated damages;
d. $8,708.00 in attorney’s fees, court costs, and audit costs; and
e. Interest on item d. from the date judgment is entered until paid in full at the rate of
4.83 percent per annum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2024.
2 FRB: H.15 RELEASE—SELECTED INTEREST RATES—MARCH 30, 2015,
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/current/ (last visited March 25, 2024)
7 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
8 – AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER