Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Aakash, Inc.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2020-0956
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION NATIONAL INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 20-0956 (CKK) v. AAKASH, INC., d/b/a Park Central Care and Rehabilitation Center, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 26, 2025)

On March 10, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ [58] Motion for Default Judgment but

deferred entry of judgment for fourteen days to allow Defendants time to appear through counsel

and move for reconsideration of this Court’s rulings on Plaintiffs’ [53] Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint and [58] Motion for Default Judgment. Fourteen days have now passed, and

Defendants have not filed any response.

The Court is satisfied that venue is proper in this District and that the Court has both

subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Venue is

proper in the District of Columbia because the relevant Pension Fund is administered in this

District. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2); Am. Compl., ECF No. 3, ¶ 3. This Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law and because the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and the Labor Management

Relations Act, as amended (“LMRA”) confer jurisdiction on federal district courts to hear and

adjudicate those claims. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32, 42, 52, 62; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. §§ 185(a),

1132(e)(1), 1132(f). And this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because (1) ERISA 1 provides for nationwide service of process in actions like this one, and (2) Defendants were served

and subsequently appeared through counsel and filed an Answer in this action without contesting

personal jurisdiction. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2); SEC v. Bilzerian, 378 F.3d 1100, 1106 n.8 (D.C.

Cir. 2004) (“[T]he requirement of ‘minimum contacts’ with a forum state is inapplicable where

the court exercises personal jurisdiction by virtue of a federal statute authorizing nationwide

service of process.”); I.A.M. Nat. Pension Fund, Ben. Plan A v. Wakefield Indus., Div. of Capehart

Corp., 699 F.2d 1254, 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that ERISA provides for “nationwide service

of process” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93–533 (1973)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1) (providing that a

defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if a party fails to “make it by motion” or “include

it in a responsive pleading”); ECF Nos. 4, 7, 11.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and all the reasons stated in the Court’s prior

[61] Memorandum Opinion and Order, which this Court hereby incorporates and makes part of

this Opinion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment for the proposed

amounts in all respects, amounting to a total of $399,652.27 in unpaid contributions; $228,331.57

in liquidated damages; $2,929.36 in audit testing fees; at least $224,008.29 in interest, which shall

continue to accrue on the amounts due until the judgment is paid; and $29,258.69 in attorneys’

fees and costs. Because Defendants are deemed to admit Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants are

“alter egos” of one another, Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for these sums. See

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40, 50, 60, 70.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: March 26, 2025

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge