Trustees of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund et al v. Utley Mechanical, Inc., No. 8:2011cv02610 - Document 24 (D. Md. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/21/2013. (c/m 5/22/2013 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND GASFITTERS LOCAL 5 RETIREMENT SAVINGS FUND, et al. : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 11-2610 : UTLEY MECHANICAL, INC. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( ERISA ) is a supplemental motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiffs, the trustees of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Apprenticeship Productivity Fund, Fund, Vacation Industry Fund, Fund, Communication and Medical and Fund (collectively, the Local 5 Funds ), and the trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and International Trading Fund (together, the National Pension Funds ). 18). Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to seal two exhibits submitted in support of their supplemental motion. 19). (ECF No. (ECF No. The relevant issues have been briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the supplemental motion for default judgment will be granted and the motion to seal will be granted in part and denied in part. I. Background On November 26, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part an initial motion for default judgment filed by the trustees for the Local 5 Funds and the National Pension Funds (together, the Funds ) and the Plumbers Local Union No. 5 ( the Union ). See Trustees of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 5 Retirement Savings Fund, et al. v. Utility Mechanical, Inc., Civ. 5928691 (D.Md. Nov. 26, 2012).1 No. DKC-11-2610, 2012 WL After finding that Plaintiffs had established liability, the court explained that essentially five categories of relief were sought: (1) amounts due to the Funds related to Defendant s breach of a settlement agreement; (2) amounts due to the Funds for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and interest from January 2011 to February 2012; (3) unpaid working assessments and dues owed to the Union; (4) attorneys fees and costs; and (5) injunctive relief in the form of an audit of Defendant s records. As to the last three categories, Plaintiffs demonstrated entitlement to relief. Specifically, the court found they were entitled to union dues in the amount of $11,957.77, attorneys 1 The caption of the prior opinion incorrectly named Defendant as Utility Mechanical, Inc. The proper name, as noted in the body of the opinion, is Utley Mechanical, Inc. 2 fees in the amount of $1,603.75, costs totaling $485.00, and an order requiring Defendant to submit to an audit of its records for the period from January 2008 to the date of judgment. It was further determined that the declaration submitted in support of the amounts sought by the National Pension Funds for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and interest from January 2011 to February 2012 established entitlement to a total amount of $80,803.85. The court was unable, however, to prove up the damages by sought the Funds with respect to breach of the settlement agreement or the damages sought by the Local 5 Funds for unpaid contributions from January 2011 to February 2012. to those amounts, the Funds were permitted to As file a supplemental motion for default judgment within fourteen days. On December 10, 2012, the Funds filed additional motion papers, seeking a supplemental amount of $353,229.40. No. 18, at 1).2 (ECF The following day, they filed a motion to seal 2 This amount is sought in addition to the amount the court previously found Plaintiffs were entitled. It is not true, as the Funds suggest, that the court previously entered a partial default judgment in the amount of $94,850.37. (ECF No. 18, at 1). Rather, it merely found that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in that amount. (ECF No. 17 ΒΆ 2). No judgment has yet been entered. 3 two exhibits submitted in support of the supplemental motion. (ECF Nos. 19-22).3 II. No opposition papers have been filed. Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment A. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) limits the type of judgment that may be entered based on a party s default: A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings. Thus, where a complaint specifies the amount of damages sought, the plaintiff is limited to entry of a default judgment in that amount. [C]ourts have generally held that a default judgment cannot award additional damages . . . because the defendant could not reasonably amount. have expected his damages exceed that the court Where a complaint does not specify an is required to determination of the sum to be awarded. F.Supp.2d would In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 204 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2000). amount, that 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing make an independent Adkins v. Teseo, 180 S.E.C. v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2nd Cir. 1975); Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2nd Cir. 1981)). While the court may hold a hearing to consider evidence as to damages, it is not required to do so; it may rely instead on detailed 3 They separately filed a line to seal (ECF No. 19); the two exhibits, under seal (ECF Nos. 20, 21); and a certificate of service (ECF No. 22). 4 affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum. v. Adkins, 180 F.Supp.2d at 17 (citing United Artists Corp. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, (5th 857 Cir. 1979)); see also Laborers District Council Pension, et al. v. E.G.S., Inc., Civ. No. WDQ 09 3174, 2010 WL 1568595, at *3 (D.Md. Apr. 16, 2010) ( [O]n default without a judgment, hearing if the Court may the record only award damages the damages supports requested. ). B. Breach of the Settlement Agreement The Funds allege damages totaling $199,365.18 related to Defendant s breach of the settlement agreement. In support of this amount, they submit the supplemental declaration of James E. Killeen, III, the trustee of the Local 5 Funds, along with a copy of the settlement agreement and a spreadsheet demonstrating payments made Defendant settlement owed a Defendant. total and This evidence reflects that amount of $270,811.89 under consisting agreement, contributions interest. by of $196,966.30 in $63,743.24 in liquidated the unpaid damages, plus The parties agreed that the Funds would consider waiving the liquidated damages amount if Defendant made timely payments, and the payment schedule was based on a principal amount of Defendant $206,468.64 made seven (i.e., payments, $270,811.89 totaling stopped making payments altogether. 5 - $63,743.24). $81,933.79, but then Thus, under the reduced principal amount, Defendant owes a total of $124,534.85 (i.e., $206,468.64 - $81,933.79). Adding in the original liquidated damages amount of $63,743.24 and interest totaling $11,087.09, Plaintiffs have established entitlement to a total amount of $199,365.18. C. Contributions from January 2011 to February 2012 The evidence further supports an award of $153,864.21 to the Local 5 Funds for unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and interest Killeen s owed from declaration January 2011 demonstrates to February that, 2012. pursuant to Mr. its obligations under the collective bargaining agreements ( CBAs ), Defendant submitted contribution reports identifying the number of hours worked by covered employees and the amounts owed during this period. An attached exhibit shows that Defendant failed to make payments for certain months and made untimely payments for others. Under the CBAs, the Local 5 Funds are entitled to recover all unpaid contributions; liquidated damages of twenty percent of any unpaid or untimely contributions; and interest accruing at the rate of ten percent per annum. submitted by the Local 5 Funds shows that The evidence Defendant owes contributions in the amount of $123,666.76, liquidated damages of $22,080.26, and interest totaling $8,117.19. The Local 5 Funds are, therefore, entitled to a default judgment in the 6 total amount of $153,864.21 related to unpaid contributions from January 2011 to February 2012. III. Motion to Seal The Funds have also filed a motion to seal certain exhibits offered in judgment. support of their supplemental motion for default Generally, a motion to seal must comply with Local Rule 105.11, which provides, in relevant part: Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions, exhibits or other papers to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient protections This rule endeavors to protect the common law right to inspect and copy judicial Communications, recognizing that records Inc., 435 competing and U.S. documents, 589, interests Nixon sometimes Warner (1978), 597 v. while outweigh the public s right of access, In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984). The Funds have not advanced any argument in support of their motion to seal; rather, they merely filed a line to seal that was improperly docketed as a motion. the documents in question is Moreover, neither of necessary supplementary motion for default judgment. to resolve the Nevertheless, one of the documents, a contribution report dated January 1, 2011 (ECF 7 No. 18-6), employees, contains although the the social same security document is numbers separately with this information redacted (ECF No. 21). protecting the privacy of these of certain docketed In the interest of individuals, the unredacted version of this document will be placed under seal. In all other respects, however, Plaintiffs motion will be denied. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs supplemental motion for default judgment will be granted and their motion to seal will be denied. A separate order will follow. ________/s/__________________ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 8
]]>
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.
