Fanning v. Big Warrior Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedApril 21, 2010
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-0780
StatusPublished

This text of Fanning v. Big Warrior Corporation (Fanning v. Big Warrior Corporation) 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
Fanning v. Big Warrior Corporation, (D.D.C. 2010).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL R. FANNING, as Chief Executive Officer of the Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 09-780 (CKK) v.

BIG WARRIOR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (April 21, 2010)

Plaintiffs Michael R. Fanning, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the

Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating

Employers, the Board of Trustees of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Pipe

Line Employers Health and Welfare Fund, and the Board of Trustees of the International Union of

Operating Engineers and Pipe Line Contractors Association National Pipe Line Training Fund

(collectively, “Plaintiffs” or the “Funds”), filed a Complaint in this case against Defendant Big

Warrior Corporation (“Defendant” or the “Corporation”), on April 29, 2009. Plaintiffs allege that

the Corporation failed to submit reports or pay to the Funds the proper amount of contributions

owed under the relevant collective bargaining agreements. See Compl., Docket No. [1].

Although properly and timely served with the Complaint and Summons, Defendant failed to

respond to the Complaint, and the Clerk of the Court, upon motion by Plaintiffs, entered default

against the Corporation on June 30, 2009. See Clerk’s Entry of Def., Docket No. [6]. Presently before the Court is the Funds’ [16] Amended Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. Having

thoroughly considered the Complaint, the Funds’ amended motion and attachments thereto,

applicable case law, statutory authority, and the record of the case as a whole, the Court shall

GRANT the Funds’ [16] Amended Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, for the reasons stated

below.

I. BACKGROUND

The Funds filed the Complaint in the above-captioned matter on April 29, 2009. See

Compl. As set forth in the Complaint, the Funds assert that the Defendant is bound through its

collective bargaining agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers and related

agreements to pay the Funds certain sums of money for each hour worked by employees of the

Corporation performing work covered by the relevant agreements and to supply records necessary

to permit the Funds to determine if the Corporation is making the required payments. Id. ¶¶ 8-9,

15. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that beginning on January 1, 2009 and continuing to the present

and through the date of judgment, the Corporation has employed individuals performing work

under the relevant collective bargaining agreements, but has failed to submit reports or pay the

proper amount of contributions owed, as is required under the collective bargaining agreement

and related agreements. Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 20. Plaintiffs therefore filed suit seeking the following

relief: a monetary award in the amount of the unpaid contributions owed for the period of January

1, 2009 through the date of judgment, liquidated damages, interest on the unpaid contributions, as

well as costs, audit expenses and attorneys’ fees (Count I); a court order enjoining the

Corporation from violating its collective bargaining agreements and requiring the Corporation to

immediately submit the unpaid contributions, liquidated damages and interested owed (Count II);

2 and an audit of the Corporation’s records to permit Plaintiffs to determine the amounts owed

(Count III). Id. ¶¶ 16-31.

On July 2, 2009, the Funds moved for summary judgment on Count III (audit) of the

Complaint. See Pls.’ Mot. for Entry of Def. J. on Count III of the Compl., Docket No. [7]. The

Court subsequently granted the Funds’ motion, finding that “[t]he Funds are [] entitled to default

judgment as to the Corporation’s liability for its failure to timely pay contributions to the Funds

and to supply records necessary to permit the Funds to determine if the Corporation is making the

required payments, as required under the terms of the Corporation’s collective bargaining

agreement and related agreements.” Fanning v. Big Warrior Corp., 659 F. Supp. 2d 182, 184

(D.D.C. 2009). The Court therefore awarded default judgment to the Funds on Count III (audit)

of the Complaint and ordered the Corporation to provide to Plaintiffs all contributions reports

required by the relevant agreements for work performed since January 2009 and all pertinent

employment and payroll records required for the Plaintiffs to verify the accuracy of the

Corporation’s contribution reports for work performed since January 2009. Id. at 185.

The Funds recently advised the Court that the Corporation failed to provide the payroll

records and contribution reports as required. Nevertheless, the Funds indicate that they have been

able to calculate the amount of contributions owed by Defendant using contribution records

prepared by the Corporation and supplied to the Central Pension Fund of the International Union

of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers. Based on these calculations, the Funds

initially moved for default judgment on Count I (unpaid contributions) of the Complaint on

December 21, 2009, seeking a monetary award consisting of all contributions owed as well as

liquidated damages, interest, audit fees and attorneys’ fees and costs. See Mot. for Entry of Def.

3 J., Docket No. [11].1 Specifically, Plaintiffs sought a monetary award of $1,096,063.89, which

principally consisted of unpaid contributions owed by Defendant in the amount of $912,983.02

“for the months of October 2008 through October 2009.” Id. Because the Complaint, however,

alleges only that the Corporation failed to pay Plaintiffs the proper amount of contributions owed

for the time period beginning on January 1, 2009, see Compl. ¶ 17 (“Defendant failed to pay

contributions for the period of January 1, 2009, to the present.”), there was no basis on the record

then before the Court to award Plaintiffs monetary damages based on unpaid contributions that

were owed prior to January of 2009. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ [11] Motion for

Entry of Default Judgment without prejudice, permitting Plaintiffs leave to re-file an amended

motion in conformity with the allegations in the Complaint. See Apr. 14, 2010 Order, Docket No.

[14].

Plaintiffs have since filed an Amended Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, which is

now pending before the Court. See Am. Mot. for Entry of Def. J., Docket No. [16]. As required,

Plaintiffs amended their motion to conform with the allegations in their Complaint and therefore

seek a monetary judgment for contributions owed only from January 1, 2009 through October 31,

2009, plus interest, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. See id., Att. 1 (Mem. in Support of

Am. Mot. for Entry of Def. J.) (hereinafter, “Pls.’ Mem.”) at 2. The Court notes that, like

Plaintiffs’ previous [11] Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Plaintiffs’ pending Amended

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

Related

Adkins v. Teseo
180 F. Supp. 2d 15 (District of Columbia, 2001)
Fanning v. Big Warrior Corp.
659 F. Supp. 2d 182 (District of Columbia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fanning v. Big Warrior Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fanning-v-big-warrior-corporation-dcd-2010.