Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trustees of the Local 210 Unity Pension Fund v. Country Cadillac

January 31, 2011

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 210 UNITY PENSION FUND, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COUNTRY CADILLAC, BUICK, PONTIAC AND GMC TRUCK, LLC, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' default judgment motion. That motion is GRANTED AS TO LIABILITY. The Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on the issue of damages.

BACKGROUND

This is an action by a multiemployer pension plan to collect ERISA withdrawal liability. On December 1, 2005, Defendant became obligated to contribute to a pension fund under a collective bargaining agreement it reached with Local Warehouse and Production Employees, Union Local, AFL-CIO. Compl. ¶ 8. The Plaintiffs are that pension fund's trustees. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5.

On December 31, 2008, Defendant withdrew from the pension fund. Compl. ¶ 9. By letter dated August 10, 2009, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant had statutory withdrawal liability. Compl. ¶ 10 (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1382, 1399). According to Plaintiffs, these assessments total $33,202. See Docket No. 7. On December 15, 2009, Plaintiffs advised Defendant that its withdrawal liability payment was past due, and that a failure to cure the deficiency within sixty (60) days would be considered a default. Compl. ¶ 12. The Defendant failed to cure the default within this time period. Compl. ¶

12. So Plaintiffs commenced this action, seeking unpaid assessments, accrued interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 22, 2010. On March 11, 2010, Plaintiffs served Defendant with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. See Docket No. 2. Defendant failed to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint, or even appear in this litigation. So, on May 26, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for entry of default, and for a default judgment. On May 27, 2010, the Clerk of the Court entered Defendant's default. On November 9, 2010, Plaintiffs submitted supplemental paperwork in support of their default judgment motion.

DISCUSSION

I. Applicable Standard

A default constitutes an admission of all well-pled

factual allegations in the complaint, and the allegations as they pertain to liability are deemed true. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. El Norteno Rest. Corp., 06-CV-1878, 2007 WL 2891016, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). A default judgment entered on the well-pled allegations in the complaint establishes a defendant's liability. See Garden City Boxing Club, Inc. v. Morales, 05-CV-0064, 2005 WL 2476264, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The only question remaining, then, is whether Plaintiffs have provided adequate support for the relief they seek.

In determining whether to grant a default judgment, the Court is guided by the same factors which apply to a motion to set aside entry of a default. See Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 1993). These factors are:

(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether ignoring the default would prejudice the adversary; and (3) whether a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.