Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund v. Allied Protection Services, Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’ JS-6 Case No. 2:19-cv-08089-CAS(ASx) Date May 11, 2020 Title BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS MISCELLANEOUS SECURITY TRUST FUND v. ALLIED PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. eee CHRISTINA ASNYDER Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Kathryn Halford Not Present Arlen Printz Proceedings: TELEPHONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Dkt. [ 21 ], filed March 30, 2020) I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On September 18, 2019, plaintiff Board of Trustees of the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund filed this action against defendant Allied Protection Services, Inc. (“Allied”). Dkt. 1 (‘Compl.”). The complaint asserts one claim for breach of contract. Id. Plaintiff is the administrator and fiduciary of the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund (“the Trust” or “the TMSTF”). Compl. {§ 3-5. The Trust was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“the Labor Agreement’) between various employers and local unions affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”). Id. 43. Plaintiff's claim arises out of the alleged failure of Allied, an employer subject to the Labor Agreement, to honor the terms of the Trust Acceptance and Contract Data form and the Declaration of Trust establishing the Trust (together, “the Trust Agreements”), as well as the Labor Agreement (collectively, “the Agreements”). See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges that the Agreements require Allied to, among other things, “make contributions to the TMSTF on behalf of its employees performing work covered by the Labor Agreement,” and to “pay contributions at specified rates to the TMSTF on behalf of employees performing bargaining unit work.” Compl. 4§ 9-10. In addition, “[t|he Agreements require each employer to submit reports and pay contributions to the TMSTF on behalf of all covered employees on the first (1st) day of the month for work performed during the previous month. Reports and contributions are considered delinquent if not UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’ JS-6 Case No. 2:19-cv-08089-CAS(ASx) Date May 11, 2020 Title BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEAMSTERS MISCELLANEOUS SECURITY TRUST FUND v. ALLIED PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. postmarked by the twentieth (20th) day of the month following the month in which the work was performed.” Id. 11. Plaintiff further avers that the Trust Agreements provide for liquidated damages as a result of nonpayment of contributions, calculated “at twenty percent (20%) of the delinquent contributions, or twenty-five dollars ($25.00), whichever amount 1s greater.” Compl. § 12. “The Agreements further provide that, if an employer is delinquent with submission of reports and/or contributions, an employer must pay interest on the delinquent contributions at a specified rate, and any attorney fees and costs incurred by the TMSTF for collection and/or enforcement.” Id. 13. According to plaintiff, Allied “has failed to timely report and pay contributions at the rates required by the Agreements for the period of April, May, July and August 2019” resulting in $16,360.62 in delinquent contributions, liquidated damages of $3,272.14, $104.53 in interest, and the expenditure of attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 4] 16—22. Allied has not appeared in this action to date. The Clerk entered default against Allied on January 29, 2020, based on Allied’s failure to respond to either the summons or the complaint. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff filed the present motion for default judgement against Allied on March 30, 2020. Dkt. 21-1 (“Mot.”). The Court held a hearing on May 11, 2020. Having carefully considered the plaintiffs’ motion and supporting exhibits, the Court finds and concludes as follows. I. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief 1s sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and the plaintiff does not seek a sum certain, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Granting or denying a motion for default judgment is a matter within the court’s discretion. Elektra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2005). The Ninth Circuit has directed that courts consider the following factors in deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claims: (3) the sufficiency of the complaint: (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the material facts: (6) whether defendant’s default was the product of excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986): see also Elektra, 226 F.R.D. at 392. “Before a court can enter a default judgment against a defendant, the plaintiff must satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(c) and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘