Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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 Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Circle R Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

January 2, 2014



IVAN D. DAVIS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund's ("NPF") Motion for Default Judgment against Circle R Mechanical Contractors, Inc. ("Defendant") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 (b)(2). (Dkt. No. 13.) After a licensed attorney for Defendant failed to appear at the hearing on August 30, 2013, the undersigned Magistrate Judge took this matter under advisement. Upon consideration of the Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."); Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment ("Mot. Default J."); Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Default Judgment ("Mem. Supp. Default. J."); Affidavit of William Sweeney Jr., the Administrator of the NFP ("Sweeney NPF Aff."); Declaration of Attorney's Fees by John R. Harney, Plaintiff's counsel ("Harney Decl."); and the documents submitted in proof of damages., the undersigned Magistrate Judge makes the following findings and recommends that default judgment be entered against Defendant.


On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action under Sections 502 and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145, and under section 301(a) and (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) and (c). (Mot. Default J. at I.) These acts allow parties to enforce provisions of their collective bargaining agreements. In filing its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages, interest assessed from the date that payment was due through the date of payment, and costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to ERISA, LIMA, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust executed by the United Association Local Union No. 440 ("Local Union") and Defendant. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, )

A. Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 185(a), 1132 and 1145 because the funds are administered from the Plaintiff's principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Where an action is brought in a district court of the United States under Sections 502 and 515 of ERISA, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Moreover, "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce... or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties." 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under the decision in Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pens. Fund v. McD Metals, Inc. , 964 F.Supp. 1040, 1045 (E.D. Va. 1997).[1] Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Section 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(2), and Section 301(c) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(c). (Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) Venue is also properly situated in this District because the breach of the collective bargaining agreement and consequential breach of Section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, occurred within this judicial district. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7.)

B. Service of Process

Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), service of process is proper in any district where a defendant resides or may be found, When a plaintiff fails to serve the defendant properly under federal or state law, a court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant and may not enter default judgment against him Omni Capital Mil, Lid. v. Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k), (stating that [s]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served" (quoting Mississippi Publ'g Corp. v. Murphee, 326 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1946))); Cent. Operating Co. v. Util. Workers of AM., 491 F.2d 245, 249 (4th Cir. 1974) (reversing lower court's decision to enter default judgment against a non-resident defendant union because the court lacked personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff failed to effectively serve the union with summons and complaint).

Although § 1132(e) states where a defendant may be served, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the manner in which service must occur. Under Rule 4(h), service upon a corporation, partnership, or other unincorporated association shall be effectuated "in the manner prescribed for individuals by subdivision (e)(1). or by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h). Individuals are properly served under subsection (e)(2) by delivering to the person a copy of the summons and the complaint. Id. at 4(e)(2).

On April 15, 2013, a private process server served Sandy Reitman, authorized agent of Defendant company, with a copy of the Summons, Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Certificate of Service. (Old. No. 7.) Therefore, Plaintiff properly served Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) and FRCP 4(h).

C. Grounds for Default

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on February 21, 2013 and filed its Amended Complaint on March 11, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 4.) Defendant has failed to appear, answer, or file any other responsive pleadings in this matter. On July 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default with the Clerk. (Dkt. No, 8.) On July 9, 2013, the Clerk entered default against Defendant. (Dkt. No. 9.) On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and the Court conducted a hearing on the matter on August 30, 2013.[2] (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13-14.) After Defendant failed to ...

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.