EXHIBIT 10 Proposed Order
Bryce C. Loveland, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 10132 | Christopher M. Humes Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 2 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 3 || 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614 4 || Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 > || Email: bcloveland@bhfs.com 6 chumes@bhfs.com wnobriga@bhfs.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CASE NO.: 2:24-cv-00960-JCM-NJK |? | TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 SECURITY 13 || FUND FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 14 || TEAMSTERS CONVENTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND; BOARD OF TRUSTEES FINDINGS OF FACT, 15 ||OF THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND VACATION TRUST FUND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 DEFAULT JUDGMENT 7 Plaintiffs, ig ||*: 19 ARATA EXPOSITIONS, INC., a Maryland corporation; AE I & D, LLC, a Maryland 20 || limited liability company,, 71 Defendants. 22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’, the Boards of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Securit: 23 ||Fund for Southern Nevada and Teamsters Convention Industry Training Fund (collectivel 24 || referred to as the “Trust Funds”) request for entry of Default Judgment against Arata Expositions 25 ||Inc. (“Arata”) and AE I & D, LLC (“AE I & D”). Default having been entered agains 26 || Defendants, the Court having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Motion, being fully advised, and goo 27 || cause appearing, the Court now makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. 28
1 I. Findings of fact. 2 1. Plaintiffs are the Trust Funds and are fiduciaries for purposes of the Employee 3 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1500. 4 2. Arata Expositions, Inc. and AE I & D, LLC acted as employers within the State of 5 Nevada employing persons (“Covered Employees”) who perform work covered by a collective 6 bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Arata and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 7 Local 631 (“Union”). 8 3. The CBA requires Arata and AE I & D to make employee benefit contributions to 9 the Trust Funds on behalf of its Covered Employees. 10 4. The Trust Funds are ERISA employee benefit trust funds that provide benefits to 11 Covered Employees. 12 5. The Trust Funds are established by Trust Agreements (“Trust Agreements”). 13 6. Under ERISA and the Trust Agreements, Arata is obligated to make their books 14 and records available for a contract compliance review (“Audit”). 15 7. Arata and AE I & D have failed to adequately respond to the Trust Funds’ requests 16 to make their books and records available for an Audit, by failing to provide all of the needed 17 documents to complete the Audit. 18 8. The Trust Funds’ governing documents provide that if Arata and AE I & D fail to 19 make their books and records available for an Audit, the Trust Funds are permitted to presume 20 contributions in the amount of $100,000 for each year covered by the attempted audit. 21 9. The Trust Funds have repeatedly requested that Arata and AE I & D make their 22 books and records available for an Audit as required by ERISA and the Trust Agreements. 23 10. Arata and AE I & D have repeatedly refused to make their books and records 24 sufficiently available for the Trust Funds to conduct an Audit. 25 11. Arata and AE I & D, therefore, is presumed to have failed to meet their obligations 26 to remit employee benefit contributions to the Trust Funds as set forth in the CBA and Trust 27 Agreements, and as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1145. 1 12. As a result of their delinquencies, Arata and AE I & D are liable to the Trust Funds 2 for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. 3 II. Conclusions of Law. 4 1. “The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the 5 complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. 6 United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S., 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). 7 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to grant default judgment 8 against a defendant who has failed to plead or defend an action. To determine whether a default 9 judgment is appropriate, courts may consider the following factors: 10 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at 11 stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) 12 whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 13 14 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 3. As to the first factor, the Trust Funds will suffer prejudice if default judgment is 16 not entered because they “will likely be without other recourse for recovery if default judgment is 17 not entered in their favor.” Tr. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13 Defined 18 Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tile Concepts, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01067-GMN-GWF, 19 2016 WL 8077987 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Scudier, 53 20 F.Supp.3d 1308, 1318 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants 21 have failed to meet their obligations to remit employee benefit contributions and have failed to 22 participate in both of their respective audits. Both employers also refused to participate or 23 otherwise defend themselves in this action as required by relevant case law. Therefore, because 24 the Trust Funds will have no recourse against them unless default judgment is granted, the first 25 Eitel factor favors the entry of default judgment. 26 4. The second and third Eitel factors address the merits and sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 27 claim. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that both 1 employers failed to meet their obligations to provide requested documents as required under the 2 CBAs and Trust Agreements to which Defendants are bound. As a result, both employers are 3 liable to the Trust Funds for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ 4 fees. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). As discussed in Part II(A) herein, as a result of having default 5 entered against them, both employers have admitted these facts, which should be taken as true. 6 The second and third Eitel factors favor the entry of default judgment. 7 5. The fourth Eitel factor concerns the damages at stake in the case. The damages in 8 this case are reasonable and well-documented, based on an the Trust Funds’ governing documents 9 and the calculations performed within the Motion for Default Judgment. Moreover, the damages 10 in this case are also dictated by statute. ERISA states that, in cases like this one, courts shall 11 award unpaid contributions, interest on the unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, reasonable 12 attorney’s fees and the costs of the action, and other legal or equitable relief that the court 13 determines appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
EXHIBIT 10 Proposed Order
Bryce C. Loveland, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 10132 | Christopher M. Humes Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 2 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 3 || 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614 4 || Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 > || Email: bcloveland@bhfs.com 6 chumes@bhfs.com wnobriga@bhfs.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CASE NO.: 2:24-cv-00960-JCM-NJK |? | TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 SECURITY 13 || FUND FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 14 || TEAMSTERS CONVENTION INDUSTRY TRAINING FUND; BOARD OF TRUSTEES FINDINGS OF FACT, 15 ||OF THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 631 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND VACATION TRUST FUND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 DEFAULT JUDGMENT 7 Plaintiffs, ig ||*: 19 ARATA EXPOSITIONS, INC., a Maryland corporation; AE I & D, LLC, a Maryland 20 || limited liability company,, 71 Defendants. 22 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’, the Boards of Trustees of the Teamsters Local 631 Securit: 23 ||Fund for Southern Nevada and Teamsters Convention Industry Training Fund (collectivel 24 || referred to as the “Trust Funds”) request for entry of Default Judgment against Arata Expositions 25 ||Inc. (“Arata”) and AE I & D, LLC (“AE I & D”). Default having been entered agains 26 || Defendants, the Court having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Motion, being fully advised, and goo 27 || cause appearing, the Court now makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. 28
1 I. Findings of fact. 2 1. Plaintiffs are the Trust Funds and are fiduciaries for purposes of the Employee 3 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1500. 4 2. Arata Expositions, Inc. and AE I & D, LLC acted as employers within the State of 5 Nevada employing persons (“Covered Employees”) who perform work covered by a collective 6 bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Arata and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters 7 Local 631 (“Union”). 8 3. The CBA requires Arata and AE I & D to make employee benefit contributions to 9 the Trust Funds on behalf of its Covered Employees. 10 4. The Trust Funds are ERISA employee benefit trust funds that provide benefits to 11 Covered Employees. 12 5. The Trust Funds are established by Trust Agreements (“Trust Agreements”). 13 6. Under ERISA and the Trust Agreements, Arata is obligated to make their books 14 and records available for a contract compliance review (“Audit”). 15 7. Arata and AE I & D have failed to adequately respond to the Trust Funds’ requests 16 to make their books and records available for an Audit, by failing to provide all of the needed 17 documents to complete the Audit. 18 8. The Trust Funds’ governing documents provide that if Arata and AE I & D fail to 19 make their books and records available for an Audit, the Trust Funds are permitted to presume 20 contributions in the amount of $100,000 for each year covered by the attempted audit. 21 9. The Trust Funds have repeatedly requested that Arata and AE I & D make their 22 books and records available for an Audit as required by ERISA and the Trust Agreements. 23 10. Arata and AE I & D have repeatedly refused to make their books and records 24 sufficiently available for the Trust Funds to conduct an Audit. 25 11. Arata and AE I & D, therefore, is presumed to have failed to meet their obligations 26 to remit employee benefit contributions to the Trust Funds as set forth in the CBA and Trust 27 Agreements, and as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1145. 1 12. As a result of their delinquencies, Arata and AE I & D are liable to the Trust Funds 2 for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. 3 II. Conclusions of Law. 4 1. “The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the 5 complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. 6 United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S., 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). 7 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to grant default judgment 8 against a defendant who has failed to plead or defend an action. To determine whether a default 9 judgment is appropriate, courts may consider the following factors: 10 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at 11 stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) 12 whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 13 14 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 3. As to the first factor, the Trust Funds will suffer prejudice if default judgment is 16 not entered because they “will likely be without other recourse for recovery if default judgment is 17 not entered in their favor.” Tr. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13 Defined 18 Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tile Concepts, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01067-GMN-GWF, 19 2016 WL 8077987 (D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Scudier, 53 20 F.Supp.3d 1308, 1318 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants 21 have failed to meet their obligations to remit employee benefit contributions and have failed to 22 participate in both of their respective audits. Both employers also refused to participate or 23 otherwise defend themselves in this action as required by relevant case law. Therefore, because 24 the Trust Funds will have no recourse against them unless default judgment is granted, the first 25 Eitel factor favors the entry of default judgment. 26 4. The second and third Eitel factors address the merits and sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 27 claim. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that both 1 employers failed to meet their obligations to provide requested documents as required under the 2 CBAs and Trust Agreements to which Defendants are bound. As a result, both employers are 3 liable to the Trust Funds for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ 4 fees. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). As discussed in Part II(A) herein, as a result of having default 5 entered against them, both employers have admitted these facts, which should be taken as true. 6 The second and third Eitel factors favor the entry of default judgment. 7 5. The fourth Eitel factor concerns the damages at stake in the case. The damages in 8 this case are reasonable and well-documented, based on an the Trust Funds’ governing documents 9 and the calculations performed within the Motion for Default Judgment. Moreover, the damages 10 in this case are also dictated by statute. ERISA states that, in cases like this one, courts shall 11 award unpaid contributions, interest on the unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, reasonable 12 attorney’s fees and the costs of the action, and other legal or equitable relief that the court 13 determines appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). This factor also favors the entry of default 14 judgment. 15 6. Regarding the fifth Eitel factor, there is no possibility of dispute concerning the 16 material facts. Because both employers have had a default entered against them, the allegations in 17 the complaint are deemed admitted and taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 18 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S., 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)). Therefore, the fifth Eitel factor 19 also favors the entry of default judgment. 20 7. The sixth Eitel factor demonstrates that excusable neglect is not a factor here. The 21 Complaint was filed on May 23, 2024 See ECF No. 1. A Summons was issued to both employers 22 on the same day. See ECF No. 3. On July 30, 2024, the registered agent of both employers 23 accepted service of the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 4 and 5. Despite this service, neither employer 24 filed an Answer. The Trust Funds were then forced to file Motions for Entry of Clerk’s Default on 25 September 5, 2024. See ECF Nos. 6 and 7. Both employers again failed to respond, which led to 26 their failure to adequately plead or otherwise defend the suit, resulting in the entry of default on 27 September 24, 2024. See ECF No. 8. In short, there is no evidence that either employer’s default 1 was the result of excusable neglect. The sixth Eitel factor favors the entry of a default judgment. 2 8. The seventh and final Eitel factor also weighs in favor of entering default 3 judgment. Despite the general policy that cases “should be decided on the merits whenever 4 reasonably possible,” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472, when defendants fail to answer the complaint, a 5 decision on the merits is “impractical, if not impossible.” Anzalone, 2018 WL 3004664 *7 (citing 6 PepsiCo v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2002). “Thus, the 7 preference to decide a case on the merits does not preclude a court from granting default 8 judgment.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp.2d at 1177 (citing Kloepping v. Fireman’s Fund, No. C 94- 9 2684 TEH, 1996 WL 75314 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The 10 Trust Funds have no recourse to obtain relief other than bringing this suit. Therefore, this factor 11 also weighs in favor of the entry of a default judgment. 12 9. The damages set forth by the Trust Funds’ and their corresponding calculations are 13 supported by the Trust Agreements, the Trust Funds’ Collection Policy, and 29 U.S.C. 14 1132(g)(2). 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered against Defendant Arata fo 2 || delinquent employee benefit contributions ($349,986), liquidated damages ($184,266), interes 3 || ($184,266), audit fees ($480) and attorneys’ fees ($11,721) for a total of $730,719. Post-judgmen 4 ||interest shall be set at 18%, in accordance with the Trust Funds’ Collection Policies an 5 || Procedures. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered against Defendant AE I & D 7 for delinquent employee benefit contributions ($524,979), liquidated damages ($406,426) 8 ||interest ($406,426), audit fees ($375) and attorneys’ fees ($11,721) for a total of $1,349,927 Q || Post-judgment interest shall be set at 18%, in accordance with the Trust Funds’ □□□□□□□□□□ 10 || Policies and Procedures. 11
3 DATED May 21, 2025.
Se 14
16 CB. f tte J Atala, 17 i “ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 || Respectfully submitted by: BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
1 /s/ Christopher M. Humes Christopher M. Humes, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 22 || William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 23 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 25 26 27 28