Board of Trustees of the Sign, Pictorial and Display Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. PS Trade Show Services, Inc., A Nevada Corporation, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedAugust 11, 2023
Docket4:22-cv-09137
StatusUnknown

This text of Board of Trustees of the Sign, Pictorial and Display Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. PS Trade Show Services, Inc., A Nevada Corporation, et al. (Board of Trustees of the Sign, Pictorial and Display Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. PS Trade Show Services, Inc., A Nevada Corporation, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Trustees of the Sign, Pictorial and Display Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. PS Trade Show Services, Inc., A Nevada Corporation, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SIGN, Case No. 22-cv-09137-HSG (AGT) PICTORIAL AND DISPLAY INDUSTRY WELFARE FUND, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs, Re: Dkt. No. 28 v.

PS TRADE SHOW SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs have moved for default judgment. Judge Gilliam referred the motion to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. That report and recommendation follows.1 * * * 1. The undersigned recommends that Judge Gilliam enter default judgment against PS Trade Show Services, Inc. (“PS Tradeshow NV”), a defunct Nevada corporation that is now

1 On a motion for default judgment, the Court accepts the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). operated as an unincorporated proprietorship in Nevada and California. See Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 10–12, 14–17. Plaintiffs have alleged, and offered evidence to support, that PS Tradeshow NV underpaid its contributions to its employees’ pension and welfare trust funds and failed to submit to a complete audit. See id. ¶¶ 55–65; Dkt. 32-2, Williams Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3–11. Through this conduct, PS Tradeshow NV breached a collective bargaining agreement and violated

ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1059, 1145. The evidence supports that PS Tradeshow NV owes Plaintiffs, i.e., the trust funds and their trustees, $56,223.51.2 The equities favor entering judgment for this amount in favor of Plaintiffs and against PS Tradeshow NV. PS Tradeshow NV didn’t answer the complaint, despite being served, see dkt. 22; Mot., dkt. 28 at 8–10, making a decision on the merits impossible. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). 2. The undersigned recommends that Judge Gilliam also enter default judgment against Pete Steele. Pete was the President of PS Tradeshow NV and now operates PS Tradeshow NV in “his own name,” as an unincorporated proprietorship in Nevada and California. Compl.

2 This total is the sum of the following amounts:

$24,089.01 in unpaid contributions; $2,408.92 in liquidated damages (for untimely contributions); $5,683.61 in interest (for untimely contributions); $8,752.50 in audit costs; $14,113.24 in attorneys’ fees; and $1,176.23 in costs.

Proposed Judgment, Dkt. 32-3 at 2; see also Williams Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 8–11 & Ex. A; Dkt. 28- 1, McDonough Decl. ¶ 7 & Exs. 1–2.

These damages are recoverable under ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees are based on reasonable hourly rates (ranging from $190/hour for a senior paralegal up to $600/hour for Of Counsel attorneys with over 40 years of experience) and reasonable hours billed (64.8 hours). See Dkt. 28-1, McDonough Decl. ¶¶ 1–8. ¶¶ 12, 16–17, 26. “A sole proprietor is personally liable for the debts of the business.” 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 23 (2022); see also Century Sur. Co. v. Polisso, 139 Cal. App. 4th 922, 943 (2006) (“An individual who owns the assets of a sole proprietorship is personally liable for all debts and responsibilities incurred by the business.”). Pete was served with the complaint, by substitute service at his home, see dkt. 21; Mot., Dkt. 28 at 12, but failed

to answer. Because he is personally liable for PS Tradeshow NV’s debts, the judgment entered against PS Tradeshow NV should also be entered against him. 3. The undersigned recommends that Judge Gilliam also enter default judgment against PS Trade Show Services, Inc. (“PS Tradeshow CA”), a California Corporation, on the basis that PS Tradeshow NV and PS Tradeshow CA are alter egos. In the labor context, the Ninth Circuit utilizes a “two-part alter ego test.” Resilient Floor Covering Pension Fund v. M&M Installation, Inc., 630 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir. 2010). The test “requires proof (1) that the two firms have ‘common ownership, management, operations, and labor relations,’ and (2) that the non-union firm is used ‘in a sham effort to avoid collective

bargaining obligations.’” Id. (quoting UA Loc. 343 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1994)). Both prongs of the test are satisfied here. First, PS Tradeshow NV and PS Tradeshow CA plausibly have common ownership, management, operations, and labor relations. Plaintiffs allege that Pete Steele, his wife (Nicole Steele), or both, incorporated PS Tradeshow CA; that PS Tradeshow CA and PS Tradeshow NV use the same name in commercial dealings; that both companies operate in the same industry (they install and remove displays at trade shows and events); and that both companies are operated from the Steeles’ residence in California. See Compl. ¶¶ 18–20, 40–43. Considered together, these allegations satisfy prong one of the alter-ego test. Second, PS Tradeshow CA, the non-union firm, was plausibly created in a sham effort to avoid PS Tradeshow NV’s collective bargaining obligations. Plaintiffs allege that the Steeles incorporated PS Tradeshow CA after PS Tradeshow NV fell behind on its contributions. See id. ¶ 43. Plaintiffs also allege that PS Tradeshow CA was formed for “the express purpose of avoiding the pre-existing Collective Bargaining obligations of PS Tradeshow NV.” Id. ¶ 20.

These allegations satisfy prong two of the alter-ego test. Because both prongs are satisfied, the undersigned recommends that Judge Gilliam enter default judgment against PS Tradeshow CA, as PS Tradeshow NV’s alter ego. PS Tradeshow CA was served with the complaint, see dkt. 19; Mot., Dkt. 28 at 8, but failed to answer. Because PS Tradeshow CA is PS Tradeshow NV’s alter ego, the judgment entered against the latter should also be entered against the former. 4. The undersigned recommends that Judge Gilliam not enter default judgment against Switch On Solutions, Inc. (“Switch On”), a defunct corporation that is now operated by Nicole Steele as an unincorporated proprietorship. See Compl. ¶¶ 21–22, 24–25, 27. Plaintiffs contend

that Switch On is an alter ego of PS Tradeshow NV, but in this instance, they haven’t satisfied prong two of the alter-ego test. The critical inquiry under prong two is whether a union employer used a non-union employer “in a sham effort to avoid collective bargaining obligations.” Resilient Floor, 630 F.3d at 852 (simplified); see also S. California Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 36 v. Rodin & Co., 558 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The alter ego doctrine is designed to prevent employers from escaping their collective bargaining obligations by shifting work to non-union firms they also own.”) (simplified). Here, Switch On and PS Tradeshow NV are both union employers. They are signatories to the same collective bargaining agreement. See Compl. ¶ 28; Dkt. 28-3, Worth Decl. ¶ 3. As a result, even if the Steeles moved employees from PS Tradeshow NV to Switch On, they would still need to make contributions on those employees’ behalf. They could not use Switch On to avoid PS Tradeshow NV’s obligations. PS Tradeshow NV is in arrears on its trust fund contributions. See Williams Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3–8.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Board of Trustees of the Sign, Pictorial and Display Industry Welfare Fund, et al. v. PS Trade Show Services, Inc., A Nevada Corporation, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-trustees-of-the-sign-pictorial-and-display-industry-welfare-fund-cand-2023.