Employee Painters' Trust v. Dahl Construction Services Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01541
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 12 13 EMPLOYEE PAINTERS’ TRUST et al., CASE NO. C19-1541-RSM 14 Plaintiffs, 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 16 v. FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

17 DAHL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al., 18

19 Defendants.

21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause against 23 Defendants Dahl Construction Services, Inc. (“Dahl Construction”) and Jack Allen Dahl for 24 25 failure to produce payroll and related records to Plaintiffs and their auditors. Dkt. #20. For the 26 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. 27 // 28 II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are six trusts bringing a breach of contract action under the Employee 1 2 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). On July 6, 2020, 3 the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Defendants for failure to file an 4 answer or otherwise plead in defense of this action. Dkt. #17. Consistent with other courts’ 5 orders granting default judgment on ERISA claims, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to order 6 an audit, awarded attorney’s fees and costs, and retained jurisdiction to adjust the final damages 7 8 award. Id. at 7; see also Walters v. Shaw/Guehnemann Corp., No. C03-04058 WHA, 2004 WL 9 1465721, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2004)). The Court entered judgment the same day. Dkt. #18. 10 As of the date of this Order, Defendants have failed to produce their payroll and related 11 records to Plaintiffs, despite several attempts by Plaintiffs’ counsel to serve Defendants with the 12 13 Court’s order and judgment. Dkt. #20-1 at ¶¶ 5-7. Plaintiffs now move the Court to enter an 14 order requiring Defendants to (1) show cause why they should not be cited or sanctioned for 15 contempt for failure to produce the records; and (2) appear in Court for a show cause hearing on 16 why the Court should not find Defendants in civil contempt and impose sanctions. Dkt. #20. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 19 A. Legal Standard 20 “Civil contempt . . . consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court 21 order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” In re Dual– 22 Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation Go–Video Inc., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 23 1993). The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence 24 25 that (1) the contemnor violated a court order, (2) the noncompliance was more than technical or 26 de minimis, and (3) the contemnor’s conduct was not the product of a good faith or reasonable 27 interpretation of the violated order. See United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 28 2010) (outlining factors); Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 774 1 2 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). “Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce 3 obedience to a court order, or to compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries 4 resulting from the contemptuous behavior, or both.” General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 5 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 6 303–04 (1947)). 7 8 B. Basis for Show Cause Order 9 As an initial matter, the Court must consider the scope of its jurisdiction following entry 10 of default judgment. “In ERISA cases, courts may retain jurisdiction to amend a default 11 judgment to more accurately reflect the plaintiff’s damages where some aspect of damages has 12 13 not yet been determined.” Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996 MJJ, 2008 WL 14 114931, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008). Courts have recently clarified that “retained jurisdiction” 15 following default judgment in ERISA cases means “what jurisdiction [the court] has if the 16 [plaintiff] moves to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or 60.” Bd. of 17 Trustees v. James Island Plastering, Inc., No. 19-CV-02921-EMC, 2020 WL 1156903, at *3 18 19 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2020). Consistent with these holdings, this Court retained jurisdiction for 20 the limited purpose of adjusting the final award for damages, attorney’s fees and costs. See Dkt. 21 #17 at 9 (“Pending the audit of Defendants’ records, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this 22 matter in order to enter an amended judgment upon the determination of the total amounts owed 23 by Defendants.”) (emphasis added). 24 25 Plaintiffs argue that this Court has authority to issue a show cause order because district 26 courts have jurisdiction to enforce their judgments. Dkt. #20 at 3. However, none of the cited 27 cases address a court’s jurisdiction to issue a show cause order after entry of default judgment. 28 See City of Las Vegas, Nevada v. Clark Cty., Nevada, 755 F.2d 697, 701 (9th Cir. 1984) (Court 1 2 retains jurisdiction to enforce consent decree); Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, 3 Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1523 (9th Cir. 1983) (District court has “power to enjoin the filing of related 4 lawsuits in other federal courts.”); Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 (9th Cir. 1984) 5 (Affirming district court’s denial of sanctions and contempt charges). Accordingly, having 6 considered the relevant case law and the language of the default judgment order, the Court finds 7 8 Plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion for an order to show cause procedurally improper. 9 Moreover, even if it maintained jurisdiction to issue a show cause order, the Court is not 10 persuaded that such an order would serve any useful purpose. There is no dispute that Defendants 11 have failed to produce their records for inspection. However, at this stage of the case, a show 12 13 cause order against defendants who defaulted for failure to appear is presumably an exercise in 14 futility. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for issuing a show cause order and scheduling a 15 court hearing. This ruling does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 59 or 60. James Island Plastering, Inc., 2020 WL 1156903 at *3. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 19 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion, the attached declarations and exhibits, and the 20 remainder of the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause, Dkt. #20, is DENIED. If 21 Plaintiffs seek to amend the final judgment, they may submit a motion to amend the judgment 22 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 23 24 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2021. 25 26 A 27 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE