Memorandum and Order — Dave Weaver v. Hewitt-Lucas Body Company, Inc. (Dkt. 11, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

A memorandum and order of U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk in Dave Weaver, et al. v. Hewitt-Lucas Body Company, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00585-SEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, dated and filed September 29, 2022 as Doc. 11. It grants the plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. [7]). The plaintiffs sued on May 31, 2022 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, alleging that Hewitt-Lucas failed to make fringe-benefit contributions to the District Number 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Trust. Hewitt-Lucas was served on June 3, 2022 but did not appear, and the Clerk entered default on June 30, 2022. The court finds that Hewitt-Lucas owes the plaintiffs $14,708.94 in total.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 4:22-cv-00585-SEP Doc. #: 11 Filed: 09/29/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 146




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                  EASTERN DIVISION

DAVE WEAVER, et al.,             )
                                 )
          Plaintiffs,            )
                                 )
     v.                          )                           Case No. 4:22-cv-00585-SEP
                                 )
HEWITT-LUCAS BODY COMPANY, INC., )
                                 )
          Defendant.             )

                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
       This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendant Hewitt-Lucas Body Company, Inc. Doc. [7]. The Court grants the motion.
                                          BACKGROUND
       Plaintiffs filed suit against Hewitt-Lucas on May 31, 2022, under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, alleging that Hewitt-Lucas failed to make fringe-benefit contributions to
the District Number 9, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension
Trust. Doc. [1]. Though Hewitt-Lucas received service of process on June 3, 2022, Doc. [5], it
has not filed a responsive pleading or entered an appearance. On June 30, 2022, the Clerk
entered Hewitt-Lucas’s default, Doc. [9], and Plaintiffs now move for default judgment,
Doc. [7].
                                            STANDARD
       Default judgments are not favored in the law, and prior to granting a default judgment, a
court should satisfy itself that the moving party is entitled to judgment by reviewing the
sufficiency of the complaint and the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claim. U.S. ex rel. Time
Equip. Rental & Sales, Inc. v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir. 1993); Monsanto v. Hargrove,
2011 WL 5330674, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2011). Entry of default by the Clerk of Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) is a prerequisite to the grant of default
judgment under Rule 55(b), but whether to grant default judgment is a separate question within
the discretion of the Court. See Johnson v. Dayton Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998);
Fingerhut Corp. v. Ackra Direct Marketing Corp., 86 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1996).

 Case: 4:22-cv-00585-SEP Doc. #: 11 Filed: 09/29/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 147




       After the Clerk’s default has been entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all
well pleaded facts contained in the complaint. Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir.
2010) (citing Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
However, “it remains for the [district] court to consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute
a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusions of law.”
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). While factual allegations
in the complaint are generally taken as true, those allegations relating to the amount of damages
must be proven. Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2001);
Stephenson v. El-Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 916-17 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that district courts must
provide detailed findings regarding damage calculations, even in default judgments, and “generic
reference to evidentiary support for the damages determination” is insufficient); see Painters
Dist. Council 2 v. Grau Contracting, Inc., 2012 WL 2848708, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 12, 2012)
(applying this principle in an ERISA delinquent-contributions case).
                                           DISCUSSION
       Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), plaintiffs are entitled to recover all of the principal
contributions owed, plus liquidated damages totaling up to 20% of the delinquency, interest,
attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiffs must prove their actual damages to a “reasonable degree of
certainty.” Painters Dist. Council No. 2 v. Diversified Drywall Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 6740650, at
*2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 31, 2012) (citing Everyday Learning Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th
Cir. 2001)). Plaintiffs may prove their damages through sworn affidavits and supporting
documentation. SSM Managed Care Org., L.L.C. v. Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc., 2014
WL 1389581, at *2-4 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 9, 2014). If damages are ascertainable, the Court may
determine the amount without a hearing based on the evidence in the record. See Stephenson,
524 F.3d at 915-16.
       In the Complaint, Plaintiffs sought $10,315.10 in contributions unpaid between October
2019 through March 2022, “plus all unpaid amounts that will have become due subsequent to
March 2022.” Doc. [1] at 4. Plaintiffs then provided evidence of these damages—in addition to
amounts unpaid through June 2022—with their Motion for Default Judgment and supporting
documentation. Based on the affidavit of the trust’s employee who bears the responsibly for
“monitor[ing] and calculate[ing] the amounts owed and submitted by employers,” Doc. [8-2], the
attorney-fee affidavit, Doc. [8-1], the memorandum in support of the Motion for Default

                                                 2

 Case: 4:22-cv-00585-SEP Doc. #: 11 Filed: 09/29/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 148




Judgment, Doc. [8], and the other supporting documentation, Docs. [8-3], [8-4], [8-5], [8-6],
[8-7],the Court finds that Plaintiffs have proven their damages to a reasonable degree of
certainty. The Court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint,
together with the information presented in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, affidavits,
and memorandum in support as they relate to Plaintiffs’ damages.
       Under ERISA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2), 1145, and under the applicable collective
bargaining agreements, see Docs. [8-3] at 25, [8-4] at 25, [8-5] at 25, Hewitt-Lucas owes
$11,122.80 in delinquent fringe-benefit contributions and $2,224.56 in liquidated damages.
Docs. [8] at 2, [8-2]. Hewitt-Lucas must also pay “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the
action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). Plaintiffs incurred $899.00 in attorneys’ fees and $462.58
in court costs. Docs. [8] at 2, [8-1]. Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that the
services performed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys were reasonable and necessary to the litigation of this
case, that the rates charged were reasonable, and that the amount sought for attorneys’ fees is
reasonable. Greater Kansas City Laborers Pension Fund v. Thummel, 738 F.2d 926, 931 (8th
Cir. 1984). Hewitt-Lucas owes Plaintiffs, in total, $14,708.94.
       Accordingly,
       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. [7], is
GRANTED. The Court enters judgment accordingly.
       Dated this 29th day of September, 2022.




                                                 SARAH E. PITLYK
                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.moed.195888.11.0.pdf

Size

151,235 bytes

SHA-256

b6cca92683fd5e6fa9a0321f219eef384a4c6e270f7fcea5bffbba1453b75db5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.moed.195888.11.0.pdf

Original

archive.org