Operating Engineers Local 139 Health Benefit Fund v. Vision Utility Inc, 2:22-cv-00713

Plaintiffs (several Operating Engineers funds and the union) sued Vision Utility, Inc. on June 20, 2022, alleging violations of ERISA and the LMRA for failing to make fringe benefit contributions, submit monthly reports, pay administrative assessments and submit to audits as required by a collective bargaining agreement and incorporated trust agreements.
Process server served the summons and complaint on Vision’s registered-agent address on June 29, 2022; Vision never filed an answer or appeared and the clerk entered default on July 29, 2022.
The plaintiffs moved for an order compelling Vision to submit to an audit; the court granted that motion and ordered production of payroll books and records by October 31, 2022. Vision did not comply.
Plaintiffs obtained declarations from three union members who worked for Vision during the audit period and the fund administrator used those declarations plus CBA rates to calculate unpaid contributions, interest and delinquency assessments.
Plaintiffs submitted an itemization of damages and affidavits supporting attorneys’ fees and costs and moved for default judgment; the court found the damage calculations sufficiently certain and granted default judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of service / entry of default	Service was properly effected on Vision’s registered agent; Vision received notice but did not respond	Vision did not appear; provided an unsigned undated letter claiming it had closed and had no funds	Service and entry of default were proper; defendant was aware and failed to defend
Liability under CBA / ERISA obligations	Vision breached the CBA and trust agreements by failing to remit reports and contributions and by refusing audit access	Defendant offered no competent response or filings (only an unsigned letter claiming closure)	Default establishes liability on the pleaded ERISA and LMRA claims
Compliance with court-ordered audit	Plaintiffs sought and obtained a court order compelling an audit; Vision failed to comply	Vision did not comply and offered no documentary payroll records	Court found noncompliance; plaintiffs proceeded to calculate damages without the audit
Damages calculation & fees	Plaintiffs used employee declarations, CBA rates, fund-administrator calculations, and counsel affidavits to compute unpaid contributions, interest, delinquency assessments and attorneys’ fees	Defendant provided no contrary evidence to challenge amounts	Court found damages and fees proved with reasonable certainty and entered judgment for $17,792.94 (including $3,032 in fees/costs)

Cardenas v. City of Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2011) (service and summons requirements; plaintiff must ensure each defendant receives summons and complaint)
Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. Ellishbooks, 957 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2020) (well‑pleaded allegations of complaint accepted as true after default)
Wehrs v. Wells, 688 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2012) (damages must be proved unless liquidated or capable of calculation)
e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2007) (default judgment establishes liability but damages require inquiry; court may rely on documentary evidence or affidavits)
In re Catt, 38 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1994) (damages allegations in complaint are not deemed true on default)
Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319 (7th Cir. 1983) (district court may determine damages without a hearing when amount is ascertainable from definite figures)