Walsh v. Kreiger

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin·Decided January 29, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00700·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

EUGENE SCALIA, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-700-pp v.

GARY KRIEGER, STRATAGEM, INC. and STRATAGEM, INC. SAVINGS PLAN,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT (DKT. NO. 17), ENTERING PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RETAINING JURISDICTION AND CLOSING CASE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES

The plaintiff filed a complaint to enjoin certain acts and practices violating Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., and to obtain relief for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Dkt. No. 1. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to remit certain employee salary deferral contributions to the Stratagem, Inc. Savings Plan, id. at 2-3; failed to remit other payments in a timely manner, id. at 4-5; and failed to authorize distributions, id. at 6. The court extended the time for service—twice—at the plaintiff’s request. Dkt. No. 7, 13. The Clerk of Court entered default as to all defendants on December 1, 2020. The plaintiff moved for default judgment on December 16, 2020. Dkt. No. 17. No defendant has appeared or otherwise responded to the motion. I. ENTRY OF DEFAULT Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 requires a two-step process before the entry of default judgment. A party first must seek an entry of default based on the opposing party’s failure to plead. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). This means that the

court must assure itself that the defendant was aware of the suit and still did not respond. The plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on the three defendants. Dkt. No. 5. The plaintiff explained that on May 7, 2020, he sent a waiver of service packet by first-class mail. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. The plaintiff used the same address for all three defendants—defendant Gary Krieger’s home address, because Krieger is the registered agent for Stratagem, Inc. Id. (Krieger had confirmed during an investigation by the

Employee Benefits Security Administration that Strategem, Inc. Savings Plan had the same address as Strategem, Inc. Id.) On the same date, the plaintiff tried to send the packet of documents to Krieger’s corporate email address—the same address the plaintiff’s investigator had used to communicate with the defendants during the investigation. Id. at 2-3. That email (as well as emails to Krieger) was returned undeliverable. Id. at 3. The plaintiff left voicemails for Krieger to try to confirm that he’d received the documents, using the same

phone number its investigator had used during the investigation; while the answering machine stated Krieger’s name, no one answered the calls and none of the plaintiff’s voicemails were returned. Id. After waiting thirty days, the plaintiff contacted the U.S. Marshals Service and asked that it serve the summons and complaint on each defendant. Id. The USMS responded that it would need an order from the court to serve the three defendants. Id. at 3. On June 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed a

motion asking the court to order the USMS to serve the defendants and to extend the deadline for effecting service, expressing concern that the defendants were trying to evade service. Dkt. No. 5. On July 8, 2020, the court granted that motion and ordered the USMS to serve the summons and complaint on all defendants by September 11, 2020. Dkt. No. 7. The U.S. Marshal filed Forms USM-285, showing service on all three defendants on August 5, 2020 by serving Cyndi Krieger at her residence. Dkt. Nos. 8-10. On October 2, 2020, the plaintiff again moved for an extension of time,

fearing that Cyndi Krieger did not have the authority to accept mail on behalf of the corporation or the Plan at her home. Dkt. No. 12 at 2-3. The court granted the motion and ordered service by November 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 13. In connection with the application for the entry of default, the plaintiff has filed the declaration of Attorney Catherine Seidelman, dkt. no. 16-1, and Deputy Marshal Shane Hitchler, dkt. no. 16-2, regarding the steps taken to serve the defendants. Based on their submissions, the court finds that the

plaintiff has served all three defendants. With respect to Gary Krieger, the U.S. Marshals Service served his wife, Nancy, at their personal residence located at 10512 Bridge Street, Cedarburg, WI 53012 on August 5, 2020. Dkt. No. 16-1 at ¶8; Dkt. No. 10. The woman that Hitchler served identified herself as Gary Krieger’s wife and explained that Krieger was in Milwaukee for the day. Dkt. No. 16-2 at ¶3. Hitchler filed a declaration explaining that he personally served Krieger’s wife at their home but inadvertently wrote down the incorrect first name (he called her Cyndi) on

the USM-285 form. Id. at ¶¶3-5. Hitchler realized that he had searched public records showing that a Cyndi Krieger used to reside at the address but that Cyndi had passed away in 2010. Id. at ¶5. Hitchler had served Krieger’s wife, Nancy, whose identity he verified using the driver’s license in the USMS database. Id. The picture in the database matched the picture of the person whom Hitchler served on August 5, 2020. Id. On October 30, 2020, Hitchler personally served Gary Krieger on behalf of Stratagem, Inc. and the Stratagem, Inc. Savings Plan. Id. at ¶7. Hitchler

served Krieger in the Lasata Nursing Home parking lot located at W76N677 N. Wauwatosa Road, Cedarburg, Wisconsin. Id. at ¶¶6, 7. Hitchler recognized Gary Krieger from his driver’s license photo as Krieger sat in his gray Tahoe SUV. Id. at ¶7. Hitchler confirmed with Krieger that he was Gary Krieger and asked to see his driver’s license. Id. Hitchler personally served Krieger at approximately 5:05 p.m. with two copies of the summons and complaint—one for the defendant corporation and one for the defendant plan. Id. The court

notes that Gary Krieger is the sole owner of Stratagem, Inc. and that Stratagem, Inc. sponsors the Stratagem, Inc. Savings Plan. Dkt. No. 16-1 at ¶6. Gary Krieger is listed as Stratagem’s registered agent. Id. II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 17) After the entry of default, the plaintiff may move for default judgment under rule 55(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). When the court determines that a defendant is in default, the court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in

the complaint. e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 2007). “A default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants are liable to plaintiff on each cause of action in the complaint.” Id. However, “even when a default judgment is warranted based on a party’s failure to defend, the allegations in the complaint with respect to the amount of damages are not deemed true.” Id. (quoting In re Catt, 38 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004)). A district court “must conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty. Id. Rule 55(b)(2) allows the district court to

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

Walsh v. Kreiger, (E.D. Wis. 2021).

Walsh v. Kreiger (Walsh v. Kreiger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

E360 INSIGHT v. the Spamhaus Project
500 F.3d 594 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)