Northwest Carpenters Health and Security Trust v. Sightline Professionals LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 NORTHWEST CARPENTERS HEALTH AND 9 SECURITY TRUST; NORTHWEST Case No. 2:23-cv-02005-JHC CARPENTERS RETIREMENT TRUST; 10 NORTHWEST CARPENTERS INDIVIDUAL ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT ACCOUNT PENSION TRUST; NORTHWEST 11 CARPENTERS VACATION TRUST; and CARPENTERS-EMPLOYERS 12 APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST FUND OF WASHINGTON-IDAHO, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v.

15 SIGHTLINE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, 16 Defendant. 17 I 18 INTRODUCTION 19 This matter comes before the Court on the Trust Funds’[(Plaintiffs’)] Motion for Entry of 20 Default Judgment. Dkt. # 13. The Court has considered the motion, the rest of the case file, and 21 the governing law. Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion. 22 / 23 / 1 II 2 DISCUSSION 3 If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, the clerk enters the party’s default. Fed. 4 R. Civ. P. 55(a). Then, upon a plaintiff’s request or motion, the court may grant default

5 judgment for the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 6 (9th Cir. 1980). On default judgment motions, “[t]he court must accept all well-pled allegations 7 of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount of damages.” UN4 8 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (citing TeleVideo Sys., 9 Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)). Courts typically consider these “Eitel 10 factors” when evaluating a request for a default judgment: 11 (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 12 stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy 13 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

14 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). “[D]efault judgment is appropriate 15 only if the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint suffice to establish a plaintiff’s 16 entitlement to a judgment under the applicable law.” Dentist Ins. Co. v. Luke St. Marie Valley 17 Dental Grp., P.L.L.C., No. 2:21-cv-01229-JHC, 2022 WL 1984124 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 6, 2022) 18 (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 2007)). 19 A. Application of Eitel Factors 20 1. Prejudice to Plaintiff 21 “[P]rejudice exists where the plaintiff has no recourse for recovery other than default 22 judgment.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014) 23 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant has failed to respond to this action, so 1 default judgment is Plaintiffs’ only means for recovery. See Eve Nevada, LLC v. Derbyshire, 2 No. 21-0251-LK, 2022 WL 279030 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2022). Thus, this factor supports 3 default judgment. 4 2. Merits of Plaintiff’s Claims and Sufficiency of Complaint

5 “Courts often consider the second and third Eitel factors together.” Devs. Sur. and 6 Indem. Co. v. View Point Builders, Inc., No. C20-0221JLR, 2020 WL 3303046, at *5 (W.D. 7 Wash. Jun. 17, 2022). As mentioned above, the Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in 8 the complaint as established fact. Accepting such allegations, the complaint suffices to state the 9 causes of action directed against Defendant. Thus, the second and third Eitel factors weigh in 10 favor of Plaintiffs. 11 3. Sum of Money at Stake 12 This factor “considers whether the amount of money requested is proportional to the 13 harm caused.” Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Est. of Wheeler, No. C19-0364JLR, 2020 14 WL 433352, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2020). Here, Plaintiffs seek delinquent fringe benefit

15 contributions, plus legally recoverable and related liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees, 16 and costs. Thus, the fourth Eitel factor supports default judgment. 17 4. Possibility of Dispute Over Material Facts 18 There is no sign that the material facts are in dispute. And again, “[t]he general rule of 19 law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to 20 damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 21 1977). Defendant did not appear, so the Clerk correctly entered default against it. Dkt. # 12. 22 / 23 / 1 5. Probability that Default was Because of Excusable Neglect 2 The sixth Eitel factor assesses whether Defendant’s default for failure to appear was 3 because of excusable neglect. Boards of Trustees of Inland Empire Elec. Workers Welfare Tr. v. 4 Excel Elec. Servs., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00200-MKD, 2022 WL 1243663, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Apr.

5 26, 2022). Generally, courts do not find excusable neglect when defendants were properly 6 served with the complaint. See, e.g., Maersk Line v. Golden Harvest Alaska Seafood LLC, No. 7 C20-1140-JLR-MLP, 2020 WL 6083464, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2020), report and 8 recommendation adopted, No. C20-1140 JLR, 2020 WL 6077419 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 15, 9 2020). Plaintiffs establishes that they did properly serve Defendant. See Dkt. # 9. So, this factor 10 weighs in favor of default judgment. 11 6. Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits 12 Generally, cases “should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible,” so 13 courts disfavor default judgment on this factor. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But in this case, 14 Defendant’s failure to appear or respond “makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not

15 impossible,” so the Court is not precluded from granting default judgment. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. 16 Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Emp. Painters’ Trust v. Dahl 17 Constr. Servs., Inc., CASE NO. C19-1541-RSM, 2020 WL 3639591 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 18 2020). Thus, default judgment is an appropriate remedy in this case. 19 In sum, the Eitel factors support default judgment. 20 B. Damages; Attorney Fees & Costs. 21 Because the Court does not accept the amount of claimed damages as true in a default 22 judgment motion, it must assess whether Plaintiff’s claimed damages are appropriate to 23 award. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving its requested damages are 1 || reasonable and supported by evidence. See Bd. of Trs. Of the Boilermaker Vacation Tr. v. Skelly, 2 || Inc., F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 3 The Declaration of Kealsye Fahey in Support of the Trust Funds’ Motion for Entry of 4 || Default Judgment, Dkt. # 14, the Declaration of Jeffrey Maxwell in Support of the Trust Funds’ 5 || Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Dkt. # 15, along with the attachments to these documents, 6 || provide sufficient evidence to support each discrete amount sought to be reduced to judgment. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that Defendant 10 || Sightline Professionals, LLC is liable to Plaintiffs under ERISA and the applicable written trust 11 agreements, for the following for April and May 2023: 12 a. Fringe benefit contributions of $5,673.64; 13 b. Liquidated damages in the amount of $676.95 (per the terms of the trust 4 agreements (see Dkt. # 14 at 5); and

15 c. Prejudgment interest of $765.02.

6 Also, the Court AWARDS Plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees of $7,468.00 and costs of

7 $610.00 under 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2)(D).

18 Dated: July 19, 2024. 6 4. Chur John H. Chun 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23

ORDER RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT -— 5 2:23-cv-02005-JHC