International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund v. Lettermen Signage, Inc. ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND INTERNATIONAL PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES INDUSTRY * PENSION FUND, et al., . Plaintiffs, v. * Civ. No. JKB-23-01059 LETTERMEN SIGNAGE, INC., et al., x Defendants. * * * * * * * * te * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs have brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. The operative Amended Complaint names three Defendants: (1) Lettermen Signage, Inc.; (2) Hansen Ventures, Inc.; and (3) Lawrence John Hansen, in his capacity as trustee of the Lawrence John Hansen Trust.! (ECF No. 14.) Mr. Hansen, who is proceeding in this matter pro se, has filed a timely Answer. (ECF No. 28.) But Lettermen Signage and Hansen Ventures failed to file timely responsive pleadings or otherwise defend in this action, and accordingly orders of default have been entered against them. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against Lettermen Signage and Hansen Ventures. (ECF No. 35.) “Courts in this Circuit generally do not enter a default judgment against co-defendants if there are outstanding claims against another co-defendant in the action, when—as here—those ' The Court denied Plaintiffs’ earlier Motion for Default Judgment with respect to the original Complaint (which was brought solely against Lettermen Signage) (ECF No. 1), because of deficiencies in that pleading. (ECF No. 12.) The Court granted leave to amend (see id. at 7), and Plaintiffs filed the operative Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28), adding Hansen Ventures and Mr. Hansen as defendants. claims involve the same underlying facts or are otherwise closely interrelated.” Erie Ins. Co. v. Derby Real Est. Dev., LLC, Civ. No. JKB-23-01144, 2024 WL 694225, at *1 (D. Md. Feb. 20, 2024) (citing Jefferson v. Briner, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 430, 433-36 (E.D. Va. 2006), and United States ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1967)). Thus, the Motion will be denied as premature, without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ renewing their Motion for Default Judgment at an appropriate point at a later stage of this litigation. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 35) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. □ DATED this day of October, 2024. BY THE COURT: K APL James K. Bredar United States District Judge