International Union, Security,Police & Fire Professionals of America, et al v. Southeastern Protective Services, Inc., No. 2:2014cv00162 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 10 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the principal amount of $81,625.87, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. A copy of this order was forwarded to the defendant and counsel for the plaintiffs on 4/27/15. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 4/27/15. (tbro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
International Union, Security,Police & Fire Professionals of America, ...n Protective Services, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF Doc. 11 COURT VIRGINIA Norfolk Division INTERNATIONAL UNION, CLL11K, U.S. DISIRIC1 COURT SECURITY, NOP! ' >LK. VA POLICE & FIRE AMERICA POLICE PROFESSIONALS (SPFPA); & FIRE OF and SECURITY, PROFESSIONALS AMERICA LOCAL No. OF 4 52, Plaintiffs, Civil v. SOUTHEASTERN PROTECTIVE No.: 2:14cvl62 SERVICES, INC. , Defendant. MEMORANDUM This filed matter by of (collectively, Southeastern the of before International Professionals 55(b) is America Protective on an Security, ("SPFPA") and its unopposed Police, Local motion & Union Fire No. 452 requesting default judgment against Services, Rules of discussed Court Union, "Plaintiffs") the Federal reasons the ORDER Inc. Civil herein, ("Defendant") Procedure. the Court under ECF No. GRANTS 10. Rule For Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and DIRECTS that judgment be entered against Defendant in the amount detailed below. I. On April alleging that FACTUAL 18, case 2014, Defendant bargaining agreement this AND through PROCEDURAL Plaintiffs breached (the "CBA") failing BACKGROUND to filed the their written complaint collective entered into by the parties to pay for certain accrued leave Dockets.Justia.com benefits. Compl., contract with ECF the No. 1. federal Specifically, government "to services at the Norfolk Naval Ship Yard, provide had a security Lafayette River Complex and Craney Island Fuel Terminal in Virginia." Compl. U 4. Defendant ECF No. 10-1; see Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, SPFPA Local 452 members provided such security services under the employment of Defendant. Compl. 1 4. On or about January 17, 2013, Defendant's contract with the federal government ended. 10. After accrued such sick contract and vacation pursuant to the terms demands for payment. a complaint ended, with Defendant leave time of the CBA, Department owed to to its pay H the employees despite Plaintiffs' Id. HH 11/ 13. the failed Id. several Local Union members filed of Labor (DOL) Wage & Hour Division, but the DOL purportedly refused to assist the Union on the basis Id. ^1 that 17. Defendant Plaintiffs pursuant to § 301 (MLMRA"), which was no longer then the of filed Labor provides that a a a federal complaint Management suit to contractor. in this Relations enforce a Court Act collective bargaining agreement between a union and employer in an industry affecting commerce may be brought in any federal district court that has jurisdiction over the parties. On June was 18, served with However, at no 2 014, a Defendant, summons time and between 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). through its registered agent, complaint. service ECF No. and the 7, at present 2-3. has Defendant or filed an answer, otherwise appeared filed any other pleading or letter, before this Court. Thus, Plaintiffs requested entry of default on December 22, 2014, which the Clerk entered on December 23, 2014. On January 28, 2015, judgment, 10, Plaintiffs' No. the 10-1, 9. plus interest and costs. ECF No. motion is supported by an affidavit from a Vice President of SPFPA, each of 8, Plaintiffs moved for entry of default seeking $81,625.87, at 2. ECF Nos. individual who attested to the amounts owed to Local Union represented employees. ECF at 1-2. II. Rule 55 of the STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal that entry of default Rules of Civil is appropriate Procedure provides w[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend . ." After securing entry of default, entry of default judgment. for default discretion entered, judgment in and is moving to whether party is exercise defendant well-pleaded allegations P. defaults, of sound the judgment not entitled 55(a). for judicial should to be default EMI April Music, Inc. v. White, 618 F. Supp. 2d 497, 505 (E.D. Va. 2009) a Civ. a plaintiff may then move required judgment as a matter of right." When R. MA court confronted with a motion determining the Fed. it fact.'" (citation omitted). admits Ryan v. wxthe plaintiff's Homecomings Fin. Network, Constr. 253 F.3d 778, Co., Ltd. v. (5th Cir. 1975)). a complainant 780 (4th Cir. Houston 2001) Nat'l Bank, (quoting Nishimatsu 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 To present well-pleaded allegations of fact, must allege sufficient nonconclusory factual matter that allows the reviewing court to reasonably infer that the claim at issue is "plausible on its face.'7 v. Twombly, U.S. 662, 550 678 U.S. 544, (2009) . 570 In (2007); the Bell Atl. Ashcroft default v. judgment Corp. Iqbal, 556 context, the court must then "determine whether the well-pleaded allegations in [the plaintiff's] th[e] action." complaint support the relief sought in Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780 (citation omitted). Although well-pled factual allegations are accepted as true for default admit the relating to the pleading denied."). For the complaint amount is that liability is it must in a party who See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) responsive that purposes, allegations damages. one judgment of required reason, assess district court may 55(b) (2), but ascertained it based the and after conduct "need not on extent an do the a detailed of . the not amount admitted allegation district default of court if is a not concludes judgment context, the appropriate amount of a plaintiff's evidentiary so to damages—is then independently calculate To as does ("An allegation-other than established in the damages. defaults . .if affidavits or hearing the damages, under damages documents a Rule can be attached to the plaintiff's motion." Placement 1656504, Found, 500, & at Recruiting *4 (E.D. (4th Cir. Services, Va. for Advancement, 507 Anderson & Strudwick, May Educ. 10, 3:llcv818, 2012) & Emp't (citing of Am. v. IBD2012 WL Anderson Indians, 155 v. F.3d 1998)). III. A. As LLC, Inc. discussed DISCUSSION Breach of above, the CBA Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Defendant breached the CBA by failing to pay accrued leave time to its employees. While familiar principles of contract interpretation retain some relevancy when analyzing a collective bargaining agreement, traditional rules common law of 872 F.2d 60, 212, 220 course, begin [s] such agreements are "not interpreted under of contract labor policy." 62 (4th Cir. (1983)). but Keffer v. 1989) Such [rather] H.K. federal common law USPS, looking at the language of the Here, 459 U.S. "[o] f for any Id. taking the well-pled allegations in the complaint as Plaintiffs which Inc., [the court] agreement have established that identified union members are owed sick and vacation leave pay under the CBA. CBA, federal provides [that] as with any contract interpretation, by a Porter Co., (citing Bowen v. clear manifestation of the parties' intent." true, under Plaintiffs manifests the parties' attached intent. to their ECF No. 1-1. First, complaint, the clearly Union represented employees agreed to provide Defendant agreed to pay provisions. Pursuant leave hours that were [] security services, union workers to the CBA, unused at pursuant and in to various also agreed that CBA Defendant agreed to pay sick "the end of the contract year, at the employee's effective hourly rate of pay." Defendant return, "Vacation will be Id. at 28. paid to each employee . . . within 30 days of [his or her] anniversary date." Id. at 29. According to the affidavit attached to Plaintiffs' motion for default terms of the CBA, judgment, which is supported by the employees' effective included a "health and welfare" payment, of early 2013. hourly express rate, which was $20.54 per hour as ECF No. 10-1, at 2; see ECF No. 1-1, at 23, 31. Second, taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, they have shown that Defendant breached the CBA by failing to pay accrued leave time pursuant to the terms of the CBA. In response to such failure, the Local Union attempted to use the grievance and arbitration machinery pursuant to express provisions in the CBA, ECF No. 1-1, at 17-20; ECF No. 1-3, yet Defendant refused to participate in arbitration, Compl. 1M 12, 13, and has generally been unresponsive to Plaintiffs' subsequent efforts to collect under the CBA, to include failing to appear in this case. H1I 14, 15. Accordingly, Id. this Court has before it sufficient uncontroverted facts to support the entry of default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to liability. B. After examination of Plaintiffs that it record. in support the uncontested evidence submitted by of the instant motion, can adequately ascertain damages Therefore, is unnecessary. some Damages cases, the Court based on the finds current the Court determines that a damages hearing See Anderson, courts may 155 F.3d at ascertain 507 damages (noting that, without holding in an evidentiary hearing). Plaintiffs' $81,625.87 complaint and motion for default judgment seek in damages. In support of such figure, Plaintiffs have not rested on unsupported allegations in the complaint, but have presented the Court with a copy of the written CBA, a sworn affidavit, owed to and charts setting forth the specific leave payments individual Union members. Based on such evidence, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that Defendant owes a collective $66,339.07 vacation pay, ECF No. 1-1, for an at 23, Plaintiffs' in sick leave outstanding 28-29, 31; total ECF No. awarding of post-judgment obtained in a civil case. 987 F.2d 1017, and balance 10-1, $15,286.80 of in $81,625.87. at 1-2. complaint and motion for default judgment also seek interest on any judgment awarded, the pay, 1031 and "federal law mandates interest" on any money judgment Life Ins. Co. of N.A. , (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961); Quesinberry v. (4th Cir. 1993) see also Pine Ridge Coal Co. v. Local 83 77, United Mine Workers of America, award of 187 F.3d damages Accordingly, and weekly U.S.C. of the average 422 (4th post-judgment pursuant awarded post-judgment the date 415, to 28 1-year the which § in 1961, "shall be judgment, constant 1999) interest U.S.C. interest, entry of Cir. at maturity a (affirming an LMRA an case). Plaintiffs are calculated from rate equal Treasury to yield." the 28 § 1961(a). IV. For the Plaintiffs' reasons CONCLUSION discussed above, motion for default judgment. the Court GRANTS The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the principal amount of $81,625.87, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Costs will be taxed by the Clerk following entry of the judgment. The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Order to counsel for Plaintiffs and to the Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. /slfe Mark UNITED Norfolk, Virginia April StH , 2015 STATES S. Davis DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
