Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust; Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5, Washington, D.C.; Iron Workers Apprenticeship and Tra v. Miracle Steel, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJuly 24, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-02089
StatusUnknown

This text of Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust; Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5, Washington, D.C.; Iron Workers Apprenticeship and Tra v. Miracle Steel, Inc. (Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust; Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5, Washington, D.C.; Iron Workers Apprenticeship and Tra v. Miracle Steel, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust; Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5, Washington, D.C.; Iron Workers Apprenticeship and Tra v. Miracle Steel, Inc., (D. Md. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

TRUSTEES OF THE IRON * WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 5, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * v. Civil Action No. 8:24-cv-02089-PX * MIRACLE STEEL, INC. *

Defendant. * *** MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending in this employee benefit case is Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment, brought by the Trustees (the “Trustees”) against Defendant Miracle Steel, Inc. (“Miracle Steel”). ECF No. 16. Miracle Steel failed to make contributions for several employee benefit plans (the “Funds”)1 associated with Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and organized under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Trustees properly served Miracle Steel who has not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint. Finding no hearing necessary, see D. Md. Loc. R. 105.6, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. I. Background Miracle Steel employees and members of Local Union No. 5 are entitled to certain benefits derived from the Funds created and governed by the collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) between the employer and union. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. The CBA and the attendant administration of the Funds is subject to the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 152(5) and

1 These Funds are: (1) the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association and Employees’ Pension Trust (“Local 5 Pension Fund”), the Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5 (“Local 5 Health Fund”), the Iron Workers Local Union 16 Pension Fund (“Local 16 Pension Fund”), and the Washington, D.C. and Iron Workers Apprenticeship Training Trust Fund (“Apprenticeship Fund”); (2) the Mid-Atlantic States District Council Participating Locals’ Annuity Fund (“Annuity Fund”); and (3) the Iron Workers Industry Advancement Program of Washington, D.C. and the Iron Worker-Management Progressive Action Cooperative Fund (together, the “Industry Funds”). ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3). Under the CBA, Miracle Steel must pay monthly contributions to the Funds for each hour of covered work performed by its employees and detail the contributions in monthly submitted remittance reports. Id. ¶¶ 11 & 14–16. The CBA also permits the Trustees to inspect, if necessary, payroll records to verify the correct contributions owed. Id. ¶¶ 12 & 32. Since 2021, Miracle Steel’s contributions have been delinquent, incomplete or nonexistent.

Miracle Steel more particularly failed to pay required contributions for the work performed between September and December 2021; March through May 2022; and July 2022 through March 2023. Id. ¶¶ 19–21; ECF No. 16-10 ¶¶ 14–15. The Trustees had attempted to reach repayment agreements with Miracle Steel, but substantial amounts remained unpaid. Accordingly, the Trustees filed suit on July 8, 2024, seeking unpaid contributions, interest and other related monetary damages under ERISA (Count I) and to compel an audit (Count II). ECF No. 1. Despite proper service, Miracle Steel never responded or otherwise answered the Complaint. ECF No. 6. The Clerk of the Court entered default on November 19, 2024, and the Trustees now move for default judgment under Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 12 & 16.

II. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default judgments “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The Court may enter default judgment at the plaintiff’s request and with notice to the defaulting party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Although courts maintain “a strong policy that cases be decided on the merits,” United States v. Schaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993), default judgment is appropriate when the “adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party,” SEC v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418, 421 (D. Md. 2005). In deciding whether to grant default judgment, the Court takes as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, other than those pertaining to damages. Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778, 780 (4th Cir. 2001); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.”). The Court applies the pleading standards announced in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See Balt. Line Handling Co. v. Brophy, 771 F. Supp. 2d 531, 544 (D. Md. 2011). Accordingly, where a complaint avers bare legal conclusions or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement,” the Court will not enter default judgment. Russell v. Railey, No. DKC 08-2468, 2012 WL 1190972, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2012); see, e.g., Balt. Line Handling Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d at 545 (“The record lacks any specific allegations of fact that ‘show’ why those conclusions are warranted.”). If the Complaint avers sufficient facts from which the court may find liability, the Court next turns to damages. See Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780–81. Damages are circumscribed by that which is requested in the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) (“A default judgment must not differ in

kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”). The damages request must be supported by evidence introduced either at a hearing or by affidavit or other records. See id.; see also Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 422. Here, Plaintiffs have submitted detailed declarations and exhibits substantiating their damages. The Court finds these materials sufficient to decide the motion on the papers. III. Analysis A. Liability ERISA requires that “[e]very employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145; see Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Capital Restoration & Painting Co., 919 F. Supp. 2d 680, 685 (D. Md. 2013). ERISA also authorizes plan fiduciaries such as the Trustees to enforce an employer’s contribution obligations under the plan or CBA. 29 U.S.C.

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

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy
771 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D. Maryland, 2011)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lawbaugh
359 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Ryan v. Homecomings Financial Network
253 F.3d 778 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust; Iron Workers Trust Fund Local No. 5, Washington, D.C.; Iron Workers Apprenticeship and Tra v. Miracle Steel, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-iron-workers-local-union-no-5-and-iron-workers-employers-mdd-2025.