Gusler v. Commercial Spray Installations, 1:11-cv-02039

Plaintiffs sue under ERISA §§ 502(a)(3) and 515 for unpaid contributions to the Funds under a multi-employer agreement.
Defendant Commercial Spray Installations allegedly failed to timely remit $4,700.59 for Sept.–Oct. 2011.
Relief sought includes unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and costs, totaling $6,101.94.
Defendant was properly served but did not appear or defend; plaintiffs moved for default judgment.
Court granted default judgment after determining defendant’s failure to appear was culpable and the plaintiffs evidenced damages under ERISA §1132(g)(2).
Attorney’s fees were calculated as $420 based on a two‑hour lodestar at $210/hour and supporting testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment is appropriate despite no response by defendant	Gusler (Plaintiffs)	Commercial Spray Installations	Yes, default judgment appropriate
What damages are recoverable under ERISA §1132(g)(2)	Plaintiffs entitled to unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, fees/costs	N/A	Award of $6,101.94 including unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and costs/fees
Reasonableness of attorney’s fees	Fees reasonable under lodestar, hourly rate supported by survey	N/A	Attorney’s fees approved at $420 based on $210/hr for 2 hours

Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168 (3d Cir. 1990) (courts may consider Poulis-type factors when lifting defaults and defaults can justify entry of judgment on the record)
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) (default judgments treat factual allegations as true except damages)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for reasonable attorney’s fees)
Rode v. Dellaciprete, 892 F.2d 1177 (3d Cir. 1990) (lodestar calculation framework for fees)
Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2001) (approval of using community rate surveys to determine reasonable hourly rates)