Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund v. Coast Mirror Company, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon
DecidedFebruary 8, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-00022
StatusUnknown

This text of Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund v. Coast Mirror Company, Inc. (Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund v. Coast Mirror Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund v. Coast Mirror Company, Inc., (D. Or. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL METAL AND GLASS WORKERS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP No. 3:22-cv-00022-MO AND JOURNEYMAN TRAINING FUND et al., OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, v. COAST MIRROR COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., This matter comes before me on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment [ECF 12]. For the reasons below, I grant Plaintiffs’ motion and enter judgment for Plaintiffs. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs the Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund (“Training Fund’), Trustees of the Western Glaziers Retirement Fund (“Pension Fund”), Trustees of the Glazing Industry Promotion Fund (all three, collectively, the “Trust Funds’), and Glaziers Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Local 740 (“Union”) sued Defendant Coast Mirror Company, Inc., an Oregon corporation, in January 2022. Compl. [ECF 1]. Plaintiffs allege that this court has jurisdiction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1145, as well as the Labor-

1 — OPINION AND ORDER

Management Relations Act (““LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), since the Union is a labor organization. Jd. 2-6. The Training and Pension Funds are “multiemployer plans”; the Trustees of those funds are “fiduciaries”; and Defendant is an “employer” for the purposes of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5), (21)(A) & (37)(A). The complaint alleges that Defendant is bound by a collective bargaining agreement, which incorporates the terms and conditions of the applicable Trust Agreements for the Trust Funds. Jd. {| 8; Suppl. Cadonau Decl. [ECF 17], Ex. 1 (the collective bargaining agreement, or “CBA”). The CBA requires Defendant to pay fringe benefit contributions and union dues on behalf of its employees performing work under the CBA. Compl. { 8. Contributions are payments made to various funds that have been set up for particular purposes, including pensions, apprenticeship, industry promotion, and vacation. CBA at art. XVI, § 1; Cadonau Decl. [ECF 13], Ex. 1 (amounts owed spreadsheet, or “OAS”) (listing these categories). The CBA provides for 12% annual interest on contributions that are not paid on time. CBA at art. XVI, § 2. Late contributions also incur liquidated damages of 10%. Id. In addition, the CBA requires employers to pay union membership dues, which in some cases include “market recovery” payments. CBA at art. XVIII, § 7; OAS at 1 (listing these categories). Union membership dues are not considered contributions. See CBA at art. XVI, § 1. As such, late payment of dues does not automatically incur interest or require the payment of liquidated damages. However, Plaintiffs have alleged, and I accept, that ORS § 82.010 provides for a 9% interest rate on unpaid dues. Compl. § 9; OAS at 2-4 (calculating a 9% interest rate on dues and market recovery). Finally, the amount employers must pay both for contributions and dues varies based on the type, experience, and skill of employees that do work under the agreement. Suppl. Cadonau Decl. 10. See, e.g., CBA at art. XV, § 1; OAS at 1.

2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to make the CBA-required payments from July 2021 through June 2022. Compl. § 13. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant’s failure to make these payments entitles Plaintiffs to recover the unpaid dues and contributions, interest and liquidated damages as described above, and attorney fees and costs. Jd. {] 13-15. They ask for $100,127.70 in contributions and union dues, $9,055.81 in liquidated damages, and $6,783.57 in interest. Mot. for Default J. [ECF 12] at 2. They also seek $2,103.75 in attorney fees and $537.94 in costs. Id. Plaintiffs moved for an Order of Default in May 2022, which was granted. Mot. for Entry of Default [ECF 5]; Clerk’s Entry of Default [ECF 7]. Plaintiffs later moved for Default Judgment and submitted declarations and exhibits in support of their motion. Cadonau Decl. [ECF 13]; Springer Decl. [ECF 14]. I held a status conference on January 23, 2023, seeking further support for and explanation of some of Plaintiffs’ calculations. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration and additional evidence shortly thereafter. Suppl. Cadonau Decl. [ECF 17]. LEGAL STANDARD After the entry of default, the court may grant default judgment and award damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).. “The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” Aldabe vy. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). The court may consider the following factors when deciding whether to grant a default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiffs 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. vy. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon entry of default, “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917—

3 — OPINION AND ORDER

18 (9th Cir. 1987). “Thus, the court must accept plaintiff's facts in the complaint as true, but the plaintiff must prove damages.” Joe Hand Prods. v. Holmes, No. 2:12-CV-00535-SU, 2015 WL 5144297, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 31, 2015) (citing Tele Video Sys., 826 F.2d at 917-18). ERISA requires “[e]very employer” obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan or under a collective bargaining agreement to make such contributions consistent with the terms of the plan or agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 1145. In an ERISA action in which judgment is rendered in favor of the plan, the court shall award unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages provided for in the plan, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Liquidated damages cannot exceed 20% of the delinquent contributions. /d. § 1132(g)(2)(c)(ii). In ERISA cases, fee awards “are calculated using a hybrid lodestar/multiplier approach.” McElwaine v. US W., Inc., 176 F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir. 1999).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship and Journeyman Training Fund v. Coast Mirror Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-glaziers-architectural-metal-and-glass-workers-joint-ord-2023.