Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan; Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Pension Plan; and Board of Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 525 Apprentice and Journeyman Training Trust for Southern Nevada v. TPM Services, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA * KOK 5 Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Case No. 2:24-cv-02005-JAD-DJA 6 Pipefitters Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan; Board of Trustees of the 7 Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Order Adopting Report and Pension Plan; and Board of Trustees of Recommendation and Directing 8 Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 525 Rishawn Newman to Appear and Shov Apprentice and Journeyman Training 9 Trust for Southern Nevada, Cause Why He Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court 10 Plaintiffs, ECF No. 31 11 V. 12 TPM Services, LLC, a Nevada limited liability Show-cause hearing: 7/14/26 at 10:00 a.m. company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 || On 5/19/26, the magistrate judge entered this Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 31]: 16 This is an employee benefits case arising out of Plaintiffs (the “Trust Funds”) allegation M7 that TPM Services, LLC failed to make its books and records available for compliance review as 18 required by a collective bargaining agreement, agreements establishing the Trust Funds, and the 19 Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”). The Trust Funds brought this action seeking 20 equitable relief requiring TPM to make its records available and for unpaid contributions, interest, 21 liquidated damages, audit fees, and attorneys’ fees. After TPM accepted service of the summons 22 || and complaint, but failed to file an answer, the Trust Funds obtained a default judgment. (ECF 23 || Nos. 10, 11). To aid in their execution of that judgment, the Trust Funds then sought, and 24 | obtained, a Court order requiring TPM’s managing member—Rishawn Newman—to appear for a 25 || judgment debtor examination. (ECF Nos. 15, 16). Newman failed to appear for the required 26 || examination and failed to respond to the Trust Funds’ subsequent motion for order to show cause 27 || why TPM should not be held in contempt. (ECF No. 19). The undersigned magistrate judge 28 || therefore required Newman to appear and show cause why the undersigned should not certify the Lanta nfhia fathivsa tr annanr at tha Cait ardavead Jdiidamant dakhtar avaminntinan tr tha □□□□□□□□□□

1 || Distret Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(ii). (ECF No. 25). Having 2 || heard the parties’ representations at that hearing, the undersigned now certifies the facts to Judge 3 || Dorsey and recommends that Newman be required to appear before her and show cause why he 4 || should not be adjudged in contempt of Court by reason of the facts so certified herein. 5 I. Background. 6 The Trust Funds are fiduciaries for purposes of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1500. (ECF 7 || No. 11 at 2) (findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment in favor of the Trust Funds). g || TPM acted as an employer within the State of Nevada, employing persons (“Covered 9 || Employees”) who perform work covered by a collective bargaining agreement between TPM 10 || Services and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitters 11 || Local 525. (d.). The Trust Funds are ERISA employee benefit trust funds that provide benefits 12 || to Covered Employees. (/d.). The Trust Funds are established by Trust Agreements and, under 13 || those agreements and ERISA, TPM is obligated to make its books and records available for a 14 || contract compliance review. (/d.). Despite numerous requests from the Trust Funds, TPM 15 || refused and failed to make its books and records available for the Trust Funds to conduct an audit. 16 || Ud.). The Trust Funds represent that, in the process of attempting to view TPM’s books and 17 || records, their counsel communicated with Bob Sweetin, Esq., who the Trust Funds assert had 18 || tepresented TPM. (ECF No. 18 at 3); (ECF No. 7-1 at 2). After being unable to conduct their 19 || audit, the Trust Funds brought this action on October 24, 2024. (ECF No. 1). 20 TPM was served with the summons and complaint through its registered agent on 21 || November 26, 2024. (ECF No. 4). The Trust Funds informed Sweetin of the lawsuit and 22 || provided him a three-day notice of intent to default TPM via email on December 13, 2024, to 23 || which email Sweetin did not respond. (ECF No. 18 at 4); (ECF No. 18-2); (ECF No. 18-3 at 2). 24 || When TPM failed to respond to the complaint, the Trust Funds sought and obtained a default 25 || judgment. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12). The Trust Funds then moved for a judgment debtor 26 || examination, which motion the undersigned magistrate judge granted. (ECF Nos. 15, 16). The 27 || Trust Funds then filed an affidavit of service of the undersigned’s order setting the judgment 28

1 || debtor examination, asserting that they had served the order on TPM by personally delivering and 2 || leaving a copy with TPM’s registered agent. (ECF No. 17). 3 The order set the judgment debtor examination for August 29, 2025. (ECF No. 16). It 4 || further required Newman to produce certain documents to the Trust Funds’ counsel one week 5 || before the examination. (/d.). When Newman failed to produce these documents, the Trust 6 || Funds reached out to Sweetin to ask whether he still represented Newman. (ECF No. 18 at 5); 7 || (ECF No. 18-4 at 8). Sweetin responded, “I was not aware of this. □□ talk with [Newman] today 8 || and respond. Ill either enter an appearance on TPM’s behalf or assist them in obtaining 9 || counsel.” (ECF No. 18-4 at 7-8). Sweetin also requested to move the judgment debtor 10 || examination, a request with which the Trust Funds’ counsel agreed conditioned on Sweetin 11 || providing a proposed date certain for the examination. (ECF No. 18 at 5); (ECF No. 18-4 at 2-9). 12 || When Sweetin did not provide this date, the Trust Funds moved forward with the examination. 13 || (ECF No. 18 at 5). Newman did not attend. (/d.). 14 The Trust Funds’ counsel then emailed Sweetin, informing him that they would be 15 || preparing a motion related to Newman’s failure to attend and inviting Sweetin to meet and confer 16 || regarding the matter. (ECF No. 18-4 at 2). Sweetin did not respond. (ECF No. 18 at 6); (ECF 17 || No. 18-3). So, the Trust Funds moved for an order to show cause why Newman should not be 18 || held in contempt for failing to comply with the order setting the judgment debtor examination. ! 19 |} (ECF No. 18). The Trust Funds attached a certificate of service to their motion, indicating that 20 || they had served the motion through U.S. mail and email on TPM’s registered agent and to 21 || Sweetin. (/d. at 9). 22 23 24 ' Tn that motion, the Trust funds stated that “[s]hould Newman ultimately be found in contempt, 25 || this Court should impose civil contempt sanctions of $150 per day payable to the Court for each 26 day that Newman fails to appear. The Court should also award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to compensate the Trust Funds for fees and costs incurred in conjunction with Newman’s 97 || failure to appear to the judgment debtor examination. ..If Newman is held in contempt, the Trust Funds will file a motion for sanctions, outlining the fees and costs incurred in compliance with 28 || Local Rule 54-14.” (ECF No. 18 at 7-8).

1 Neither TPM, nor Newman, nor anyone on their behalf responded to the motion for order 2 || to show cause. The undersigned magistrate judge therefore granted the motion and scheduled a 3 || show cause hearing. (ECF Nos. 19, 25). In doing so, the undersigned required the Trust Funds to 4 || personally serve a copy of the order on both Newman and TPM. (ECF No. 19). The undersigned 5 || further directed the Clerk’s Office to send a copy of the order to both Newman and TPM at 6 || TPM’s registered agent’s office and at Sweetin’s office. (/d. at 3). 7 The Trust Funds filed an affidavit of service, indicating that they had served the order on 8 || TPM at its registered agent’s office on February 6, 2026. (ECF No. 20). The Trust Funds also 9 || filed a status report regarding service in which they represented that their process server had also 10 || attempted service on Newman at his home address?’ on eight occasions between February 6th and 11 || February 17th during different times of day, to no avail. (ECF No. 21); (ECF No. 21-1). So, the 12 || Trust Funds represented that they mailed the order to Newman at his home address and emailed it 13 || to Sweetin. (/d. at 2); (ECF No. 21-2 at 2). The Trust Funds also filed a certificate of service 14 || showing that they mailed their status report to TPM at its registered agent’s office and to Sweetin. 15 |} (ECF No. 22). On March 10, 2026, Sweetin filed a stipulation to continue the show cause 16 || hearing, on which stipulation Sweetin is listed as attorney for TPM. (ECF No. 26). The 17 || undersigned ultimately rescheduled and held the show cause hearing on April 13, 2026. (ECF 18 || Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30). Sweetin and Newman appeared at the show cause hearing.* (ECF No. 30). 19 At the show cause hearing, Sweetin represented that he was not counsel of record in this 20 || case, but had agreed to assist in this matter given his friendship with Newman. Sweetin indicated 21 || that Newman’s lack of engagement in this case—and presumably, Newman’s failure to attend the 22 || judgment debtor examination—was a result of service failures. The Trust Funds’ counsel 23 24 |) 2 In their status report, the Trust Funds state that “[i]t is indisputable that Mr. Newman lives at 25 || this house because: (1) the process server called the home phone number and Megan Newman answered and said that Mr. Newman was not home on February 7, 2026; and (2) there were 26 || packages on the porch of the house addressed to Megan Newman.” (ECF No. 21 at 2); (ECF No. 21-1 at 4, 5). Newman was approximately twenty minutes late to the hearing, which hearing was scheduled 28 || for 10:00 a.m. and did not begin until 10:23 a.m. (ECF No. 30).

1 || asserted in response that they had effectuated service as evidenced by their affidavits of service 2 || on TPM and had been in communication with Sweetin about the judgment debtor examination 3 || and subsequent order to show cause. The undersigned indicated that he would certify the 4 || question of contempt to Judge Dorsey. 5 I. Discussion. 6 Under 18 U.S.C. § 401, “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine 7 || or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, 8 || as...[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 9 || Civil contempt consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure 10 || to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply. GoVideo, Inc. v. Motion Picture 11 || Ass’n of Am., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). The contempt need not be willful and there is no 12 || good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order. /d. But a person should 13 || not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith and reasonable 14 || interpretation of a court’s order. Jd. The party alleging contempt must demonstrate the alleged 15 || contemnor violated the court’s order by clear and convincing evidence. Id. 16 Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to 17 || compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous 18 || behavior, or both.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). 19 || “Compensatory awards are limited to actual losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.” Id. 20 || (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted). The civil contempt power of a magistrate 21 || judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), which provides as follows: 22 the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district 73 judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in 25 contempt by reason of the facts so certified. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). 28

1 Here, the undersigned magistrate judge ordered Newman, on behalf of TPM, to appear at 2 || ajudgment debtor examination. Newman failed to do so. The Trust Funds have shown that their 3 || counsel had repeatedly attempted to contact TPM and Newman regarding the judgment debtor 4 || examination through formal service and through Sweetin, who stated that he would talk to 5 || Newman. Given Sweetin’s relationship with Newman, the undersigned finds it was reasonable 6 || for the Trust Funds to believe Sweetin was in communication with Newman and potentially 7 || representing him and/or TPM in Sweetin’s communications regarding the judgment debtor 8 || examination. But even if Sweetin was not representing Newman and/or TPM, the Trust Funds 9 || demonstrated through an affidavit of service that they served the order setting the judgment 10 || debtor examination on TPM’s registered agent. (ECF No. 17). Nonetheless, Newman did not 11 || appear at the judgment debtor examination. 12 As a result, it appears that Newman did not take any reasonable steps to comply with the 13 || undersigned’s order setting the judgment debtor examination. And the undersigned is not 14 || convinced by the explanations as to Newman’s noncompliance. As a result, the undersigned 15 || hereby certifies that Newman has defied the Court’s order by failing to appear at the judgment 16 || debtor examination as ordered by the Court. It is recommended that Newman be required to 17 || appear before the Honorable District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey and show cause why he should not 18 || be adjudged in contempt of Court by reason of the facts so certified herein. 19 20 RECOMMENDATION 21 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Newman be required to appear before the 22 || Honorable District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey and show cause why he should not be adjudged in 23 contempt of Court by reason of the facts so certified herein. 24 °° ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION °° The deadline for anyone to object to this recommendation was 6/2/2026, and no party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate

I judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 5 Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 31] is ADOPTED in its entirety; Rishawn Newman 6 must appear in person before U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey in Courtroom 6D of th 7 Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101, at 8 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, and show cause why he should not be held in contemp of court for failing to appear for a judgment debtor examination.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs must serve a copy of this order on Newma by mail and email, and also by serving a copy on counsel for TPM Services, LLC, Robert D.

14 Sweetin. Ly) Ye 15 US. District 1 DEG Dorsey Dated: June 8, 2026 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28