Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc

W.D. Washington

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc

DecidedMay 21, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01306

StatusUnknown

This text of Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc (Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

2 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY 12 TRUST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON; CARPENTERS RETIREMENT TRUST OF 13 WESTERN WASHINGTON; Case No. 19-cv-01306-RAJ CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS VACATION

14 TRUST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON; and ORDER DENYING MOTION CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST FUND OF WASHINGTON-IDAHO,

16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 SPECTRUM SPECIALTY BUILDERS, INC., 19 a Washington corporation; and DANIEL PRIDEMORE, an individual, 20 Defendants. 21 22 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against 23 Defendants Spectrum Specialty Builders, Inc. (“Spectrum”) and Daniel Pridemore. Dkt. 24 # 10. On August 22, 2019, Spectrum and Mr. Pridemore were both served with a 25 summons and copy of the complaint. Dkt. ## 5, 6. Defendants did not appear or 26 otherwise respond. On September 18, 2019, the Court entered an order of default against 27 1 both Defendants. Dkt. # 9. Plaintiffs now move for default judgment. For the following 2 reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 3 At the default judgment stage, the court presumes all well-pleaded factual 4 allegations are true, except those related to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 5 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fair House. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 6 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). But defaulting defendants are not “held to admit facts that are 7 not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 8 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007). Simply parroting the language of a statute, for example, 9 provides only legal conclusions, which are not admitted by default. Id. Where the facts 10 establish a defendant’s liability, the Court has discretion, not an obligation, to enter a 11 default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The plaintiff 12 must submit evidence supporting a claim for a particular sum of damages. TeleVideo 13 Sys., 826 F.2d at 917-18; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). If the plaintiff cannot 14 prove that the sum it seeks is “a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation,” 15 the Court must hold a hearing or otherwise ensure that the damage award is appropriate. 16 Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981). 17 With respect to the claims against Mr. Pridemore, Plaintiffs’ motion leaves much 18 to be desired. Plaintiffs assert two claims against Mr. Pridemore personally for breach of 19 fiduciary duty and conversion. Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 4.7–4.15. And yet Plaintiffs’ motion for 20 default judgment barely addresses these claims, asserting in conclusory fashion that Mr. 21 Pridemore is liable, without reference to the relevant statutes, case law, or the supporting 22 factual allegations. See Dkt. # 10 at 9. As this Court previously explained to Plaintiffs, 23 this is insufficient. See Carpenters Health & Security Trust of W. Wash. v. GHL 24 Architectural Millwork, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-01030-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2020) (Dkt. 25 # 14). On this record, the Court simply cannot conclude that Mr. Pridemore should be 26 held personally liable for Plaintiffs’ damages related to withheld vacation contributions 27 1 and dues. 2 Although courts have discretion to enter default judgment as to fewer than all 3 defendants, the general rule is that a judgment should not be entered against a defaulting 4 party who is alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard 5 to all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Frow v. De La Vega, 552, 82 U.S. 6 552, 554 (1872). Accordingly, the Court declines to enter default judgment against either 7 defendant at this point in time. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is DENIED 8 without prejudice to refiling. Dkt. # 10. Any renewed motion should state the elements 9 of each cause of action and how the specific factual allegations support each claim 10 against each defendant.

11 Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

12 A 13 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 15 United States District Judge

16 17 ____________________________

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

2 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 CARPENTERS HEALTH AND SECURITY 12 TRUST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON; CARPENTERS RETIREMENT TRUST OF 13 WESTERN WASHINGTON; Case No. 19-cv-01306-RAJ CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS VACATION

14 TRUST OF WESTERN WASHINGTON; and ORDER DENYING MOTION CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 15 APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST FUND OF WASHINGTON-IDAHO,

16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 SPECTRUM SPECIALTY BUILDERS, INC., 19 a Washington corporation; and DANIEL PRIDEMORE, an individual, 20 Defendants. 21 22 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against 23 Defendants Spectrum Specialty Builders, Inc. (“Spectrum”) and Daniel Pridemore. Dkt. 24 # 10. On August 22, 2019, Spectrum and Mr. Pridemore were both served with a 25 summons and copy of the complaint. Dkt. ## 5, 6. Defendants did not appear or 26 otherwise respond. On September 18, 2019, the Court entered an order of default against 27 1 both Defendants. Dkt. # 9. Plaintiffs now move for default judgment. For the following 2 reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. 3 At the default judgment stage, the court presumes all well-pleaded factual 4 allegations are true, except those related to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 5 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fair House. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 6 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). But defaulting defendants are not “held to admit facts that are 7 not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 8 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007). Simply parroting the language of a statute, for example, 9 provides only legal conclusions, which are not admitted by default. Id. Where the facts 10 establish a defendant’s liability, the Court has discretion, not an obligation, to enter a 11 default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The plaintiff 12 must submit evidence supporting a claim for a particular sum of damages. TeleVideo 13 Sys., 826 F.2d at 917-18; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). If the plaintiff cannot 14 prove that the sum it seeks is “a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation,” 15 the Court must hold a hearing or otherwise ensure that the damage award is appropriate. 16 Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981). 17 With respect to the claims against Mr. Pridemore, Plaintiffs’ motion leaves much 18 to be desired. Plaintiffs assert two claims against Mr. Pridemore personally for breach of 19 fiduciary duty and conversion. Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 4.7–4.15. And yet Plaintiffs’ motion for 20 default judgment barely addresses these claims, asserting in conclusory fashion that Mr. 21 Pridemore is liable, without reference to the relevant statutes, case law, or the supporting 22 factual allegations. See Dkt. # 10 at 9. As this Court previously explained to Plaintiffs, 23 this is insufficient. See Carpenters Health & Security Trust of W. Wash. v. GHL 24 Architectural Millwork, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-01030-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2020) (Dkt. 25 # 14). On this record, the Court simply cannot conclude that Mr. Pridemore should be 26 held personally liable for Plaintiffs’ damages related to withheld vacation contributions 27 1 and dues. 2 Although courts have discretion to enter default judgment as to fewer than all 3 defendants, the general rule is that a judgment should not be entered against a defaulting 4 party who is alleged to be jointly liable, until the matter has been adjudicated with regard 5 to all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Frow v. De La Vega, 552, 82 U.S. 6 552, 554 (1872). Accordingly, the Court declines to enter default judgment against either 7 defendant at this point in time. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is DENIED 8 without prejudice to refiling. Dkt. # 10. Any renewed motion should state the elements 9 of each cause of action and how the specific factual allegations support each claim 10 against each defendant.

11 Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

12 A 13 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 15 United States District Judge

16 17 ____________________________

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington v. Spectrum Specialty Builders Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenters-health-and-security-trust-of-western-washington-v-spectrum-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack