Board of Trustees of the Northern California Plasterers Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Davidson Plastering, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02386

ORDER by Judge Hamilton adopting {{25}} Report and Recommendations; granting {{14}} Motion for Default Judgment.(pjhlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Case No. 15-cv-2386-PJH PLASTERERS HEALTH AND 10 WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND 11 Plaintiffs, RECOMMENDATION 12 v. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 DAVIDSON PLASTERING, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ryu's Report and Recommendation Re: 17 plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, as well as plaintiffs' objections to the report. The 18 court finds the report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect 19 other than the amount of contractual liquidated damages, as explained below. 20 Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is GRANTED. 21 The report and recommendation first sets forth the three categories of damages 22 sought by plaintiffs: (1) contributions that became due before the suit was filed but were 23 paid after the filing of the action, (2) contributions that became due after the suit was filed 24 and were paid before the ruling on this motion, and (3) contributions that were paid, but 25 were paid late, before the filing of the action. 26 The report recommended that statutory liquidated damages be awarded for 27 category (1) in the amount of $8,258.26. See Dkt. 25 at 9. As to categories (2) and (3), 28 the report recommended that no statutory liquidated damages be awarded, but instead, 1 that liquidated damages be awarded as a matter of contract. Id. at 9. As a result, rather 2 than receiving the 20% liquidated damages award provided for by statute, plaintiffs would 3 receive a 10% liquidated damages award provided for by the parties' contract. In the 4 report, the court calculated a 10% liquidated damages award by taking the total 5 requested liquidated damages award of $108,394.00, subtracting the $8,258.26 6 mentioned above, then dividing the remainder by two (on the assumption that the 7 remainder represented a 20% liquidated damages award for the contributions in 8 categories (2) and (3)). 9 Plaintiffs filed objections to the latter calculation, arguing that for the months of 10 October and November 2013, January through June 2014, August through December 11 2014, and January through February 2015, the liquidated damages were already 12 calculated at 10% in plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, so they did not need to be Northern District of California United States District Court 13 divided in two by the court. In contrast, the requested liquidated damages for the months 14 of June through October 2015 were calculated at 20% in the default judgment motion, 15 making the court's division correct in those instances. Even though plaintiffs' original 16 motion papers did not make this clear, it has since submitted evidence showing the 17 contribution amounts in those months, and indeed, the originally-requested liquidated 18 damages for the months of October and November 2013, January through June 2014, 19 August through December 2014, and January through February 2015 do represent a 20 10% award. See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. A, B. Accordingly, the court sustains plaintiffs' objection, 21 and the contractual liquidated damages figure will be adjusted to $83,678.32 (which 22 represents a 10% award for October and November 2013, January through June 2014, 23 August through December 2014, and January through February 2015), less the amount 24 already paid by defendants ($15,100.62), resulting in a total of $68,577.70 in liquidated 25 damages for categories (2) and (3). See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. B, Dkt. 24-1, ¶ 10. When 26 combined with the $8,258.26 from category (1), it results in a total liquidated damages 27 award of $76,835.95. 28 When combined with the other amounts recommended in the report ($12,135.82 in 2 1 inte erest, $7,65 53.00 in atttorneys' fee es, and $48 83.00 in cossts), it results in a totall of 2 $97,107.77, and a the cou urt hereby awards a that amount to plaintiffs. 3 4 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 5 Da ated: May 19, 1 2016 6 __ __________ __________ __________ ______ PH HYLLIS J. HHAMILTON 7 Un nited Statess District Ju udge 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3