Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Ltp Generations, LLC
This text of Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Ltp Generations, LLC (Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Ltp Generations, LLC) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) SERVICE EMPLOYEES ) INTERNATIONAL UNION ) NATIONAL INDUSTRY PENSION ) FUND, et al., ) ) No. 17-cv-0942 (KBJ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) LTP GENERATIONS, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 18, 2017, Plaintiffs Service Employees International Union National
Industry Pension Fund and its trustees (collectively “SEIU Fund”) commenced this
action against Defendants LTP Generations, LLC, d/b/a Oakgrove Springs Care Center
and LTP Heritage, LLC, d/b/a Oakhill Springs Care Center seeking, among other things,
delinquent benefit fund contributions, interest, and damages, pursuant to sections
502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 5–10, 30, 40.)
Defendants did not answer SEIU Fund’s complaint or defend this action in any way.
(See generally Docket, Case No. 17-cv-942.) Accordingly, on August 22, 2017, the
Clerk of the Court entered default. (See Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 8.)
Currently pending before this Court is SEIU Fund’s motion for default judgment.
(See Pls.’ Mot. for Default Judgment (“Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 8.) On June 4, 2018, this Court referred the case for full case management to a Magistrate Judge, and the Clerk’s
Office randomly assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather. (See
Min. Order of June 4, 2018; Min. Entry of June 4, 2018.) On March 14, 2019,
Magistrate Judge Meriweather published a 24-page Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant in part SEIU Fund’s motion. (See R&R,
ECF No. 9.) 1
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Meriweather engaged in a comprehensive analysis
of SEIU Fund’s motion. (See generally id.) The R&R first recommends the entry of a
default judgment as to Defendants’ liability, explaining that such a judgment is proper
because “[SEIU Fund] ha[s] pleaded a viable ERISA claim, and [Defendants] have not
opposed the entry of default or default judgment motion.” (Id. at 9.) 2 It further
recommends a finding that Defendants are jointly and severally liable. (See id. at 22–
23.)
Next, Magistrate Judge Meriweather conducted an extensive review of the
damages that SEIU Fund alleged as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with their
obligations to contribute to the benefit fund. Relying on a lengthy declaration of Kisha
Smith, SEIU Fund’s Contribution Compliance Manager, as well as spreadsheets from
payroll audits of Defendants, the R&R concludes that SEIU Fund has proven to a
“reasonable certainty” damages totaling $132,860.95 in unpaid contributions, interest,
liquidated damages, testing fees, and supplemental contributions for the 2012 and 2013
calendar years. (See id. at 12 (Table 1); see also id. at 11–15.) The R&R further finds
1 The R&R is attached hereto as Appendix A. 2 Page numbers herein refer to those that the Court’s electronic case filing system automatically assigns.
2 that SEIU Fund has similarly proven damages totaling $283,755.34 for the Defendants’
failure to submit required reports and contributions from February 2013 through April
2018—a recommendation that is $5,877.13 less than the amount requested due to SEIU
Fund’s apparent double counting of the time period from February 2013 to May 2013.
(See id. at 17 (Table 2); see also id. at 15–18.) Magistrate Judge Meriweather also
considered SEIU Fund’s request for $6,550.50 in attorney’s fees and costs and found
that amount reasonable, recommending the full request be awarded in this case. (See id.
at 18–21.)
Magistrate Judge Meriweather also considered SEIU Fund’s request for
injunctive relief, which included a request for a court order requiring Defendants to
submit outstanding reports for the period of January 2014 through April 2017, and to
pay “‘any additional amounts found due and owing following the production of the
reports.’” (Id. at 21 (quoting Pls.’ Mot. at 1); see also id. at 21–22.) She concluded
that such relief is permissible under ERISA section 1132(g)(2)(E) and is consistent with
the relief granted in similar ERISA cases in this district. (See id. at 21–22.)
Accordingly, the R&R recommends that this Court grant such relief. (See id.)
Magistrate Judge Meriweather’s R&R specifically alerts the parties to the
requirement that any objections must be filed in writing within 14 days. (See id. at 24.)
It further informs the parties that any objections must “specifically identify the portion
of the report and/or recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such
objections.” (Id.) It also advises “that failure to file timely objections to the findings
and recommendations set forth in this report may waive [the parties’] right of appeal
3 from an order of the District Court that adopts such findings and recommendation.”
(Id.) To date, no such objections have been filed.
This Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Meriweather has thoroughly
considered the issues raised in this action, and, given that neither party has filed an
objection, this Court hereby ADOPTS the attached Report and Recommendation’s
findings and conclusions.
Thus, as set forth in the accompanying Order, SEIU’s motion for default
judgment will be GRANTED IN PART, and SEIU will be awarded: (1) $416,616.29 in
unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and testing fees, and (2) $6,550.50
in attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, the Court will grant the requested injunctive
relief and order Defendants to: (1) submit the outstanding remittance reports for the
period from January 2014 through April 2017; and (2) remit any additional outstanding
contributions that are found as a result of these reports, consistent with the analysis set
forth in the R&R.
DATE: March 29, 2019 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge
4 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A APPENDIX A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Ltp Generations, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/service-employees-international-union-national-industry-pension-fund-v-ltp-dcd-2019.