UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
BRICKLAYERS & TROWEL TRADES )
INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 19-cv-02412 (APM)
)
MASONRY CONTRACTING )
CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is Plaintiff Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund’s
Motion for Entry of Judgment by Default. See Pl.’s Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 7 [hereinafter
Pl.’s Mot.]. Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the supporting evidence, the
Motion is granted. The court will enter judgment against Defendant Masonry Contracting
Corporation in the amount of $23,802.35, with interest to accrue on this amount at the statutory
rate.
Entry of default judgment is appropriate in this case. “To warrant a default judgment, the
defendant must be considered a totally unresponsive party, and its default plainly willful, reflected
by its failure to respond to the summons and complaint, the entry of a default, and the motion for
a default judgment.” Teamsters Local 639-Emp’rs Health Trust v. Boiler and Furnace Cleaners,
Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 101, 107 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard
is met here. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint and has not taken any other
action indicating an intent to defend itself in this matter. See generally Bricklayers & Trowel
Trades Int’l Pension Fund v. Masonry Contracting Corp., No. 1:19-cv-2412 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 9,
2019). Accordingly, the court finds that entry of default judgment is proper.
The court also has made an “independent determination” of the sum to be awarded.
Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001). Under Section 515 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), “[e]very employer who is obligated to make
contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a
collectively bargained agreement shall . . . make such contributions in accordance with the terms
and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145. In an action concerning
delinquent contributions, ERISA directs the court to award the plan: (1) the unpaid contributions;
(2) interest on the unpaid contributions; (3) an amount equal to the greater of either interest on the
unpaid contributions or liquidated damages; (4) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and (5) other
appropriate relief. Id. § 1132(g)(2). “The unpaid contributions, interest, and liquidated damages
are considered ‘sums certain,’ because their calculations are mandated by ERISA and party
agreements.” Boland v. Yoccabel Const. Co., 293 F.R.D. 13, 18 (D.D.C. 2013); see also Flynn v.
Mastro Masonry Contractors, 237 F. Supp. 2d 66, 70 (D.D.C. 2002). On the other hand,
attorney’s fees are not considered a “sum certain” because the reasonableness of the fees is a
“‘judgment call’ which only the Court can make.” Combs v. Coal & Mineral Mgmt. Servs., Inc.,
105 F.R.D. 472, 475 (D.D.C. 1984).
Here, the court has considered the Declaration of David F. Stupar, Plaintiff’s Executive
Director, and the exhibits accompanying his declaration. See Decl. of David F. Stupar in Support
of Pl’.s Mot., ECF No. 7-3, at 2–33. The declaration and exhibits establish (1) the amount of
contributions owed based on actual reports submitted by Defendant and estimates of work
performed ($12,424.60); (2) the accrued interest on unpaid contributions ($1,039.15); and
2
(3) liquidated damages on unpaid contributions ($6,823.10). See id. ¶¶ 9–17; see also Summ. of
Damages for Default J., ECF No. 7-2. Additionally, the court has reviewed the Declaration of
Plaintiff’s counsel, Charles W. Gilligan, and the accompanying exhibits, see Decl. of Attorney’s
Fees and Legal Costs, ECF No. 7-3 at 34–47, and concludes that the requested attorney’s fees and
costs are fair and reasonable ($3,515.50). Plaintiff seeks no other “appropriate relief.”
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment, ECF No. 7, and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), will enter
Judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $23,802.35, with interest to accrue on this amount
at the statutory rate.
A separate, appealable Judgment accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
______________________
Dated: January 9, 2020 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
3