Boards of Trustees of the Local 191 IBEW Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. OP Electric LLC et al, No. 2:2023cv01006 - Document 16 (W.D. Wash. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 11 Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff will have a judgment against OPE as set forth herein along with post-judgment interest until paid. Signed by Judge John H. Chun. (SB)

Download PDF

Boards of Trustees of the Local 191 IBEW Health and Welfare Trust Fund et .... OP Electric LLC et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 12 BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 191 I.B.E.W. HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND; LOCAL 191 I.B.E.W. MONEY PURCHASE PENSION TRUST; NORTHWEST WASHINGTON ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY JOINT APPRENTICESHIP & TRAINING TRUST and I.B.E.W. DISTRICT NO. 9 PENSION PLAN, NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 v. OP ELECTRIC LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Contractor’s License No. OPELEEL828QB, UBI NO. 604 309 923 and AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Bond No. 100593831, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 1 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC Dockets.Justia.com 1 I 2 INTRODUCTION 3 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against 4 Defendant OP Electric LLC (OPE). Dkt. # 11. The motion is unopposed. See generally 5 Dkt. The Court has considered the motion, the record, and the applicable law. Being fully 6 advised, the Court GRANTS the motion. 7 II 8 DISCUSSION 9 If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, the clerk enters the party’s 10 default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Then, upon a plaintiff’s request or motion, the court may grant 11 default judgment for the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2); see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 12 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). On default judgment motions, “[t]he court must accept all well- 13 pled allegations of the complaint as established fact, except allegations related to the amount 14 of damages.” UN4 Prods., Inc. v. Primozich, 372 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 15 (citing TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)). Courts 16 typically consider these factors when evaluating a request for a default judgment: 17 18 19 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s 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. 20 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are generally 21 disfavored, so “default judgment is appropriate only if the well-pleaded factual allegations of 22 the complaint suffice to establish a plaintiff’s entitlement to a judgment under the applicable ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 2 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC 1 law.” Dentist Ins. Co. v. Luke St. Marie Valley Dental Grp., P.L.L.C., No. 2:21-cv-01229- 2 JHC, 2022 WL 1984124 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 6, 2022) (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 3 503 F.3d 847, 855 (9th Cir. 2007)). 4 A. Application of Eitel Factors 5 1. Prejudice to Plaintiff 6 “[P]rejudice exists where the plaintiff has no recourse for recovery other than default 7 judgment.” Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1200, 1211 (W.D. Wash. 2014) 8 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). OPE has failed to respond to this action, so 9 default judgment is Plaintiff’s only means for recovery. See Eve Nevada, LLC v. Derbyshire, 10 No. 21-0251-LK, 2022 WL 279030 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2022). Thus, this factor supports 11 default judgment. 12 2. Merits of Plaintiff’s Claims and Sufficiency of Complaint 13 “Courts often consider the second and third Eitel factors together.” Devs. Sur. and 14 Indem. Co. v. View Point Builders, Inc., No. C20-0221JLR, 2020 WL 3303046, at *5 (W.D. 15 Wash. Jun. 17, 2022). As mentioned above, the Court must accept all well-pleaded 16 allegations in the complaint as established fact. Accepting such allegations, the complaint 17 suffices to state the causes of action directed against OPE. Dkt. # 1. Thus, the second and 18 third Eitel factors weigh in favor of Plaintiff. 19 3. Sum of Money at Stake 20 This factor “considers whether the amount of money requested is proportional to the 21 harm caused.” Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Estate of Wheeler, No. C19-0364JLR, 22 2020 WL 433352, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2020). Here, because Plaintiff seeks only the ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 3 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC 1 remedies available under the parties’ agreements, there is proportionality. Thus, the fourth 2 Eitel factor supports default judgment. 3 4 4. Possibility of Dispute Over Material Facts There is no sign that the material facts are in dispute. And again, “[t]he general rule of 5 law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to 6 damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 7 1977). OPE failed to respond, so the Clerk correctly entered default against it. Dkt. # 8. 8 9 5. Probability that Default was Because of Excusable Neglect The sixth Eitel factor assesses whether the defendant’s default for failure to appear 10 was because of excusable neglect. Boards of Trustees of Inland Empire Elec. Workers 11 Welfare Tr. v. Excel Elec. Servs., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00200-MKD, 2022 WL 1243663, at *4 12 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2022). Generally, courts do not find excusable neglect when defendants 13 were properly served with the complaint. See, e.g., Maersk Line v. Golden Harvest Alaska 14 Seafood LLC, No. C20-1140-JLR-MLP, 2020 WL 6083464, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 15 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. C20-1140 JLR, 2020 WL 6077419 (W.D. 16 Wash. Oct. 15, 2020). Plaintiff establishes that it did properly serve OPE. See Dkt. # 5. So, 17 this factor weighs in favor of default judgment. 18 19 6. Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits Generally, cases “should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible,” 20 so courts disfavor default judgment on this factor. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. But in this case, 21 OPE’s failure to appear or respond “makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not 22 impossible,” so the Court is not precluded from granting default judgment. PepsiCo, Inc. v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 4 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC 1 Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Emp. Painters’ Trust 2 v. Dahl Constr. Servs., Inc., No. C19-1541-RSM, 2020 WL 3639591 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 3 2020). Thus, default judgment is an appropriate remedy in this case. 4 In sum, the Eitel factors support default judgment. 5 B. 6 Because the Court does not accept the amount of claimed damages as true in a default Damages; Attorney Fees & Costs. 7 judgment motion, it must assess whether Plaintiff’s claimed damages are appropriate to 8 award. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. The plaintiff has the burden of proving its requested 9 damages are reasonable and supported by evidence. Bd. of Trs. Of the Boilermaker Vacation 10 Tr. v. Skelly, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 11 The declarations of Tonya Osborne (Dkt. # 12), Andrew Walker (Dkt. # 13), Nicole 12 Dwarzki (Dkt. # 14), along with the attachments to these documents, provide sufficient evidence 13 to support each discrete amount sought to be reduced to judgment: $70,333.10 comprised of the 14 following amounts: 15 a. $60,636.05 comprised of $48,984.29 in contributions, $4,823.91 in liquidated 16 damages, $1,683.29 in interest, and $5,144.56 in audit fees for the April 2021 17 through March 2023 audit period; 18 b. $6,529.55 comprised of $5,760.07 in liquidated damages and $769.48 in interest 19 for the August 2021 through December 2022 delinquent period; and 20 c. $487.00 in litigation costs and $2,680.50 in attorney fees. 21 22 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 5 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC 1 III 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for default 4 judgment. Plaintiff will have a judgment against OPE as set forth above along with post- 5 judgment interest until paid. 6 Dated this 15th day of December, 2023. 7 8 9 ________________________________ JOHN H. CHUN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT – 6 CAUSE NO. 2:23-cv-01006-JHC

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.