Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Buffalo Veneer & Plywood Company, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedOctober 8, 2020
DocketCivil Action No. 2020-0670
StatusPublished

This text of Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Buffalo Veneer & Plywood Company, Inc. (Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Buffalo Veneer & Plywood Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Buffalo Veneer & Plywood Company, Inc., (D.D.C. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CARPENTERS LABOR-MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, et al.

Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:20-cv-00670 (TNM) v.

BUFFALO VENEER & PLYWOOD COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

For seven months, Plaintiffs have pressed their action under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act (“ERISA”) without response from the Defendant, Buffalo Veneer &

Plywood Company, Inc. (“Buffalo Veneer”). They now move for a default judgment against

Buffalo Veneer. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

I.

Plaintiffs are a pension fund and its trustees (collectively, the “Pension Fund”). Compl.

¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 1. The Pension Fund provides retirement benefits to employees covered under

collective bargaining agreements with local unions affiliated with the United Brotherhood of

Carpenters and Joiners of America. See id. ¶ 5.

Buffalo Veneer entered into one such collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). See id.

¶ 9; id. Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1. Under its CBA, Buffalo Veneer must comply with the Pension

Fund’s Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (“Trust Agreement”). Compl. ¶ 12. The

Trust Agreement requires employers such as Buffalo Veneer “to contribute to the Pension Fund

1 the amount set forth in the applicable CBA” and submit monthly reports of these contributions.

Id. ¶¶ 14–15.

The Trust Agreement also establishes procedures to “monitor and enforce the reporting

and contribution requirements.” Id. ¶ 17. Employers are subject to audits. Id. ¶ 15. And the

Pension Fund may assess a 1.5 percent interest rate on all delinquent contributions. 1 Id. ¶¶ 16,

19. In the event of litigation, the Pension Fund also can collect liquidated damages totaling the

greater of $750 or 20 percent of the delinquent contributions and attorney’s fees. See id. ¶¶ 16,

20–21.

The Pension Fund audited Buffalo Veneer’s payroll records from January 2014 through

May 2018 and discovered that Buffalo Veneer had failed to make its required contributions to

the Pension Fund. See id. ¶ 25; id. Ex. 2, ECF No. 1-2. The Pension Fund sent the audit

findings to Buffalo Veneer, which then made some payments toward the outstanding balance but

not the full amount. See Compl. ¶¶ 26–27. The Pension Fund has issued multiple demands to

Buffalo Veneer to pay the remaining balance, but Buffalo Veneer has not complied. See id. ¶¶

28–31. The Pension Fund also alleges that Buffalo Veneer submitted no reports on its

contributions between September 2019 through the present. Id. ¶ 39.

The Pension Fund filed this action under ERISA and the parties’ agreements seeking to

recover the rest of the delinquent contributions and to enforce Buffalo Veneer’s reporting

obligations. See id. ¶¶ 6, 24–48. Despite timely service, Buffalo Veneer never responded to the

Complaint.

1 A contribution or report is considered “delinquent” if the Pension Fund does not receive it “by the first business day on or after the fifteenth day of the month, following the month in which the relevant hours were worked.” Compl. ¶ 18. 2 At the Pension Fund’s request, the Clerk entered default against Buffalo Veneer. See

Suppl. Req. to Enter Default, ECF No. 10; Default, ECF No. 11. Buffalo Veneer has not moved

to set aside this default. The Pension Fund then filed this default judgment motion. See Pls.’

Mot. for Default J. (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 13.

II.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the process for default judgments. First, the

Clerk of Court enters a default on the docket if the “party against whom a judgment for

affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The

plaintiff then moves for a default judgment under Rule 55(b).

In assessing a default judgment motion, courts conduct a liability and damages inquiry.

The liability inquiry is limited. The “defaulting defendant is deemed to admit every well-

pleaded allegation in the complaint.” Fanning v. Permanent Sol. Indus., 257 F.R.D. 4, 7 (D.D.C.

2009) (cleaned up). If a court imposes liability, it then “must make an independent evaluation of

the sum to be awarded unless the damages are certain.” Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Nat’l Indus.

Pension Fund v. Liberty House Nursing Home of Jersey City, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 69, 76

(D.D.C. 2017).

III.

A. Default judgment is appropriate here. It has been seven months and Buffalo Veneer has

yet to enter the fray. It did not respond to the Complaint or this default judgment motion, and it

has not moved to set aside the Clerk’s default entry. Accord Fanning v. AMF Mech. Corp., 326

F.R.D. 11, 14 (D.D.C. 2018). From here, the Court need only determine whether the Pension

Fund’s allegations are well-pleaded. They are.

3 ERISA requires employers to contribute to multiemployer pension plans based on the

terms of collective bargaining agreements. See 29 U.S.C. § 1145. The Pension Fund alleges that

Buffalo Veneer entered into the CBA, which requires contributions to the Pension Fund. See

Compl. ¶¶ 9–14; id. Ex. 1, Article 24. And yet, the audit from January 2014 to May 2018

revealed that Buffalo Veneer failed to remit these contributions. Compl. ¶ 39.

More, the Pension Fund offers the audit findings of Buffalo Veneer’s payroll records.

See id. Ex. 2. Lezlee Wall, the Pension Fund’s Client Service Manager, also attests to the

missing contributions. See Aff. of Client Service Manager Lezlee Wall (“Wall Aff.”), ECF No.

13-2. Thus, the allegations and documentary evidence establish Buffalo Veneer’s liability for its

contribution obligations. Accord AMF Mech. Corp., 326 F.R.D. at 14.

The Pension Fund also alleges that Buffalo Veneer agreed to certain reporting

requirements related to its payments. See Compl. ¶ 10; Wall Aff. Ex. 2, § 5.6, ECF No. 13-4.

But it failed to submit these reports from September 2019 through the present. See Compl. ¶ 39;

Wall Aff. ¶ 6. These allegations establish Buffalo Veneer’s liability for failure to meet its

reporting obligations.

B.

Now to the damages Buffalo Veneer owes. ERISA authorizes the following damages for

actions related to delinquent contributions: “(1) the unpaid contributions; (2) interest on the

unpaid contributions; (3) an amount equal to the greater of either interest on the unpaid

contributions or liquidated damages; (4) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and (5) other

appropriate relief.” Flynn v. Mastro Masonry Contractors, 237 F. Supp. 2d 66, 70 (D.D.C.

2002). The first three are “‘sums certain’” based on the parties’ agreements. Id. But attorney’s

fees are not because “the reasonableness of the fees requested by the plaintiff is a judgment call

4 which only the court can make.” Id. (cleaned up). In assessing damages, courts can rely on

“detailed affidavits or documentary evidence.” Boland v. Providence Const. Corp., 304 F.R.D.

31, 36 (D.D.C. 2014) (cleaned up). And the plaintiff must prove the damages sought “to a

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

Related

Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Freeman-Carder LLC
498 F. Supp. 2d 237 (District of Columbia, 2007)
Flynn v. Mastro Masonry Contractors
237 F. Supp. 2d 66 (District of Columbia, 2002)
Boland v. ELITE TERRAZZO FLOORING, INC.
763 F. Supp. 2d 64 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Fanning v. Permanent Solution Industries, Inc.
257 F.R.D. 4 (District of Columbia, 2009)
Boland v. Providence Construction Corp.
304 F.R.D. 31 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Boland v. Smith & Rogers Construction L.T.D.
201 F. Supp. 3d 144 (District of Columbia, 2016)
Fanning v. Seneca One Realty LLC
265 F. Supp. 3d 31 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)
Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Int'l Pension Fund v. Barron
317 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carpenters Labor-Management Pension Fund v. Buffalo Veneer & Plywood Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenters-labor-management-pension-fund-v-buffalo-veneer-plywood-dcd-2020.