United States District Court, W.D. Washington
NORTHWEST SHEET METAL WORKERS ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs,
ASSOCIATED HEATING & SHEET METAL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ERISA matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment. Dkt. #28. Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an Order granting the judgment in certain amounts for
employee benefit contributions, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs.
Id. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that
genuine disputes of material fact preclude such judgment.
Dkt. #30. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court
disagrees with Defendant and GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment.
have brought this matter pursuant to Section 301 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (“the
Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, seeking monthly
contributions to Plaintiffs' Welfare, Pension, and
Supplemental Pension Trusts and other payments on behalf of
employees represented by Local 66, which Defendant has
allegedly failed to pay. Dkt. #13.
served their Amended Complaint on Defendant on April 15,
2015. Dkt. #7. Defendant did not respond. Accordingly, on
August 4, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default
against Defendant, which the Clerk of the Court entered on
August 5th. Dkts. #9 and #10.
March 2, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to file a Second Amended
Complaint, which this Court granted. Dkts. #11 and #12.
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on March 21,
2016, and served Defendant on April 15, 2016. Dkts. #13 and
#15. Again, Defendant did not respond. Accordingly, on May
26, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default against
Defendant, which the Clerk of the Court entered on May
27th. Dkt. #17. Plaintiffs followed with a Motion
for Entry of Default Judgment, which this Court granted on
June 3, 2016. Dkts. #18 and #19. Judgment was entered the
same day and this matter was closed. Dkt. #20.
September 28, 2016, Defendant moved for relief from default
judgment. Dkt. #22. Defendant argued that the Default
Judgment should be vacated because the parties had been
involved in settlement discussions since the time of default,
and had since reached a settlement in principle. Id.
Defendant further explained that it did not seek an Order
vacating the initial entry of default. Rather, Defendant
sought an Order vacating the entry of default judgment in
order to allow the original settlement to be finalized.
Id. at 7. Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion.
Accordingly, on October 18, 2016, this Court granted
Defendant's motion, vacated the Order of Default
Judgment, and re-opened the case. Dkt. #25.
parties subsequently submitted a Joint Status Report setting
forth a proposed discovery plan, pre-trial deadlines, and
trial date. Dkt. #26. The Court issued a Scheduling Order,
setting a bench trial for July 10, 2017. Dkt. #27. The
instant motion followed.
Standard of Review for Motions of Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). In ruling on summary judgment, a
court does not weigh evidence to determine the truth of the
matter, but “only determine[s] whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Crane v. Conoco,
Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny &
Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992)). Material
facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit
under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See O'Melveny & Meyers,
969 F.2d at 747, rev'd on other grounds, 512
U.S. 79 (1994). However, the nonmoving party must make a
“sufficient showing on an essential element of her case
with respect to which she has the burden of proof” to
survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Further, “[t]he mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the
plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251.