Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON
EMPLOYER-TEAMSTERS LOCAL NOS.
175/505 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST
FUND, and EMPLOYER-TEAMSTERS LOCAL
NOS. 175/505 PENSION TRUST FUND,
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-00308
DAVIS & BURTON CONTRACTORS, INC.,
a West Virginia Corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendant has made no response to the
motion, and has failed to make an appearance in this action. For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175/505 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (“Health Fund”) and Employer-Teamsters Local
Nos. 175/505 Pension Trust Fund (“Pension Fund”) are Employee
Benefit Plans as defined by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Defendant
Davis & Burton Contractors, Inc. (“Davis & Burton”), is a West
Virginia corporation doing business in the construction industry.
(Id. at 2.) The complaint alleges that Davis & Burton failed to
make any monthly contributions to the Health Fund and Pension
Fund on behalf of its employees, despite being obligated to do so
under the terms of its Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
with Teamsters Local Union No. 505. (Id.) The delinquent
employers procedures for the funds prescribe liquidated damages
of ten percent of the principal amount, plus interest of one and
one-half percent (1.5%) per month until the delinquent amount is
paid in full. (Id. at 2-3.)
An audit conducted at plaintiffs’ behest by Harris & Company, CPAs, revealed the following arrearages as of May 1,
2007:
Category Pension Fund Health Fund
Principle liability $4,327.62 $ 717.00
Liquidated damages $ 432.76 $ 71.70
Interest $3,340.44 $ 752.85
TOTAL $8,100.82 $1,541.55
(Doc. No. 1 at 3.) The complaint alleges that plaintiffs have
requested on several occasions that defendant make payment of the
amounts owed, but to no avail. (Id.) Accordingly, the complaint
demands judgment in the above amounts plus interest until paid in
full, as well as plaintiffs’ costs and attorney fees in bringing
this action. (Id.) The court has jurisdiction over this ERISA
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1332.
II. Analysis
A. Liability
Where service on a defendant is validly effected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, and the defendant chooses not
to plead or otherwise defend itself in an action, all of the
averments in the complaint except those relating to damages are
deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d); Ryan v. Homecomings
Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating that
“the defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-
pleaded allegations of fact”); Branch Banking & Trust Co. v.
Fowler, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799, at *6 (W.D. Va. Mar. 3,
2005).
The entry of default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is left to the discretion of the court. SEC v.
Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418, 421 (D. Md. 2005). The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals has a “strong policy” that “cases be
decided on their merits.” Id. (quoting United States v. Shaffer
Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993)). Default judgment
may be appropriate, however, when the adversary process has been
halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. Lawbaugh,
359 F. Supp. 2d at 421-22 (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831,
836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
In this case, defendant was validly served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. (See Doc. Nos. 2, 4.)
*4 Nonetheless, defendant has failed to answer or otherwise defend
or appear in this action. Default was entered against defendant
by the Clerk of this court on October 3, 2007, pursuant to Rule
55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 8.)
Plaintiffs had previously filed their motion for default judgment
on September 28, 2007. (Doc. No. 6.) Because defendant has had
ample notice of the suit pending against it, but has taken no
action, it is appropriate to grant plaintiffs’ motion for default
judgment. See Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 422.
B. Damages
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides some limitation to the discretion of courts entering default judgment:
“[A] judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or
exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment.”
Damages may not generally be awarded without a hearing or a
demonstration by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary
facts. See United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857
(5th Cir. 1979). Courts may, however, award damages in
situations in which they may be determined with certainty by
reference to the pleadings and supporting documentation. See
James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).
In their motion for default judgment, plaintiffs calculated the amounts owed by defendant as of October 1, 2007, at $8,295.58
with regard to the Pension Fund and $1,573.82 with regard to the
Health Fund, both amounts having been calculated to include
interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month.
(Doc. No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiffs further seek filing fees of
$350.00, service of process fees of $20.00, and attorney fees of
$645.00. (Id.) In support of the requested figures, plaintiffs
attach affidavits and supporting documentation, including the
calculations that resulted from the audit conducted by Harris &
Company. (Doc. No. 6 Exs. A, B.)
Having reviewed plaintiffs’ supporting materials, as well as the record in this case, the court concludes that plaintiffs’
calculation of costs, interest, and damages is accurate and that
their calculation of attorney’s fees is reasonable. See 29
U.S.C. § 1132(g). Accordingly, in an accompanying Judgment
Order, the court enters judgment against defendant in the amounts
demanded by plaintiffs.
David A. Faber
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 6) is hereby GRANTED . In an
accompanying Judgment Order, the court enters judgment against
defendant Davis & Burton in the amounts demanded by plaintiffs.
The Clerk is directed to remove this action from the court’s active docket and to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion to
counsel of record.
It is SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2007. ENTER:
