However, “[c]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have made a limited exception to this requirement for delinquent contributions that come due after a complaint is filed on the basis that such an approach is consistent with the legislative intent underlying ERISA.” Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996 MJJ, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008).
Courts hold that the complaints give fair notice of the claimed damages. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Health Care Plan v. Total Air Balance Co., No. 08-2038 SC, 2009 WL 1704677, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2009); Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996 MJJ, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008). That analysis seems appropriate here, but the plaintiff must address the legal issue in the supplemental brief before the court can enter default judgment.
2019) (citation omitted). And while “[c]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have made a limited exception to this requirement for delinquent contributions that come due after a complaint is filed on the basis that such an approach is consistent with the legislative intent underlying ERISA,” such exception does not apply where “the contribution was delinquent at the time the complaint was filed[.]” Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996-MJJ, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008). Here, the Trusts do not request relief related to the Prior Audit in their December 2022 complaint, even though they appear to have had knowledge of D&R's delinquency as early as July 2022.
When judgment is entered on the relevant sections of ERISA, Plaintiffs must be awarded these damages and costs. Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Beck Eng'g & Surveying Co., 746 F.2d 557, 569 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) (interest on late-paid contributions are mandatory as well, citing Idaho Plumbers and Pipefitters Health and Welfare Fund v. United Mechanical Contractors, Inc, 875 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1989)). Here, the amounts at issue are supported by the Declarations of Sandra Snyder, Rachell Hislop, and Ana P. Hallmon with their exhibits, as evidence supporting Plaintiffs' request for unpaid contributions, interest, and liquidated damages.
"In ERISA cases, courts may retain jurisdiction to amend a default judgment to more accurately reflect the plaintiff's damages where some aspect of damages has not yet been determined." Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996 MJJ, 2008 WL 114931, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008). Courts have recently clarified that "retained jurisdiction" following default judgment in ERISA cases means "what jurisdiction [the court] has if the [plaintiff] moves to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and/or 60."
The Court additionally deems it appropriate to retain jurisdiction over future requests for attorney's fees and costs incurred in judgment collection. See Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. 06-cv-06996 MJJ (JCS), 2008 WL 114931, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) (retaining jurisdiction over future requests for attorney's fees and costs incurred in judgment collection).
Once liability is established, the plaintiff seeking default judgment must then establish that the requested relief is appropriate. Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, 2008 WL 114931, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). 1. Injunctive Relief
Nevertheless, courts in this District have granted relief for delinquent contributions that accrued and became delinquent after the filing of the complaint, without requiring the complaint to be amended. See Local 81 v. Wedge Roofing, 811 F. Supp. 1398, 1401-02 (N.D. Cal. 1992); see also Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) ("Courts in the Ninth Circuit have made a limited exception to [the requirement that default judgment be constrained by the remedies sought in the complaint] for delinquent contributions that come due after a complaint is filed on the basis that such an approach is consistent with the legislative intent underlying ERISA."). Plaintiffs further allege and demonstrate with supporting evidence that Defendant owes $66,114.14 in interest through January 20, 2020, and the equivalent amount, $66,114.
Courts have also considered monthly reports from contributors as well. Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, No. C06-06996 MJJ, 2008 WL 114931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) (relying on monthly contribution reports created by Defendants to calculate contributions owed). However, conclusory declarations alone are insufficient to support the amount of damages in a default judgment.
This interpretation is supported by the statute's 20-percent cap on liquidated damages, as a fund could effectively exceed that cap by recovering both liquidated damages and interest on those damages. See Carpenters Southwest Admin. Corp. v. Ekstrom Indus., 2009 WL 10671631, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2009) (permitting award of interest on liquidated damages would effectively allow a party to exceed the 20-percent cap); Bay Area Painters v. Alta Specialty, 2008 WL 114931, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008) (same). The Fund notes that PSF has not objected to an award of interest on the liquidated damages.