Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Organizational Trust v. Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided June 25, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01515·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE NORTHWEST SHEET METAL WORKERS CASE NO. C24-1515-KKE PENSION FUND, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT v.

PACIFIC SHIP REPAIR & FABRICATION INC,

Defendant. Plaintiffs Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund (“Pension Trust”), Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Supplemental Pension Trust (“Supplemental Pension Trust”), and Sheet Metal Workers Local 66 (“Local 66”) seek default judgment against Defendant Pacific Ship Repair & Fabrication Inc. (“Pacific Ship”) for delinquent employee benefit contributions, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs owed under the applicable trust agreements for October 2023 through June 2024. Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiffs have shown they are entitled to this relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and the Court grants the motion in part.

On June 8, 2022, Pacific Ship entered into an agreement with The Metal Trades

Department of the AFL-CIO and the Puget Sound Metal Trades Council1 (the “Labor Agreement”). Dkt. No. 13-1. Under the Labor Agreement, Pacific Ship agreed to pay certain amounts “into jointly administered Health, Welfare, Dental, and Pension Trust Funds.” Id. at 24. By agreeing to the Labor Agreement, Pacific Ship “also became obligated to comply with the terms of the trust agreements adopted by Plaintiffs.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 11. Each of these agreements provides for how and when Pacific Ship shall pay contributions, and the consequences for failing to pay timely contributions. Dkt. No. 13-4 at 31–33 (Pension Trust agreement), Dkt. No. 13-5 at 29–31 (Supplemental Pension Trust agreement). On September 23, 2024, Plaintiffs2 filed this case (Dkt. No. 1) and then served Pacific Ship (Dkt. No. 5). On November 19, 2024, after Pacific Ship failed to appear, the Clerk of Court entered Pacific Ship in default. Dkt. No. 8. Now Plaintiffs move for entry of default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) for $32,062.86 in delinquent contributions owed under the trust agreements for October 2023 through June 2024, $4,465.63 in interest, $6,412.57 for liquidated damages, and $4,374 in attorney’s fees and $1,300.19 in costs. Dkt. No. 12. A. Jurisdiction Before entering default judgment, the Court must confirm that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. See Shaw v. Cent. Puget Sound Reg’l Transit Auth., No. 23-35394, 2024 1 The Puget Sound Metal Trades Counsel is Local 66’s bargaining agent. Dkt. No. 13-2 at 2. 2 Plaintiffs Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Organizational Trust, Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Welfare Fund, Western Washington Sheet Metal Training Trust, and Northwest Sheet Metal Labor Management Cooperation Trust voluntarily dismissed their claims against Pacific Ship. Dkt. No. 11. WL 2828810, at *1 (9th Cir. June 4, 2024) (citing In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties” before entering default)).

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 18. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Pacific Ship, whose registered agent for Washington was properly served with this complaint. Dkt. No. 5; see Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992) (acknowledging nationwide personal service sufficient for personal jurisdiction under ERISA); WASH. REV. CODE § 23.95.450(1); see also id. § 4.28.080(9) (permitting service of summons on a company’s registered agent). B. Legal Standard A court’s decision to enter a default judgment is discretionary. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Default judgment is “ordinarily disfavored[,]” because “[c]ases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s denial of default judgment). At the default judgment stage, the court takes “the well-pleaded factual allegations” in the complaint “as true[,]” but “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps, 980 F.2d at 1267. When considering whether to exercise discretion in entering a default judgment, courts may consider various factors, including: (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 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 underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. “The merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim and the sufficiency of the complaint are often treated by courts as the most important Eitel factors.” Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. George, No. EDCV 14-01679-VAP (SPx), 2015 WL 4127958, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015). This district also requires a party seeking default judgment to provide “a declaration and other evidence establishing plaintiff’s entitlement to a sum certain and to any nonmonetary relief

sought.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 55(b)(2). C. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Default Judgment. As detailed below, the Court has considered each of the Eitel factors and concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment. The first factor, prejudice to Plaintiffs, favors granting default judgment because Plaintiffs (and the covered employees) will be prejudiced by not receiving the bargained-for benefits. “The second and third Eitel factors—the substantive merits of the claim and the sufficiency of the complaint—are often analyzed together.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014). Here, Plaintiffs allege Pacific Ship violated ERISA. Dkt. No. 1

¶¶ 16, 18, 19. ERISA provides that employers must pay contributions required “under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement,” 29 U.S.C. § 1145, and provides for a civil action and remedies, including liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, id. § 1132(a), (g). To be entitled to a mandatory award of liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs under ERISA, (1) the employer must be delinquent at the time the action is filed; (2) the district court must enter a judgment against the employer; and (3) the plan must provide for such an award. Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs meet all three elements because they allege Pacific Ship was delinquent at the time of filing (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 15); the Court finds default judgment appropriate; and the trust agreements provide for an award of unpaid contributions, prejudgment interest, liquidated

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

Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Organizational Trust v. Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Organizational Trust v. Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication Inc (Northwest Sheet Metal Workers Organizational Trust v. Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related