United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL M AND GLASS WORKERS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND JOURNEYMAN TRAINING FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
HIGHLAND GLASS LLC, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before me on Plaintiff Trustees of the
Glaziers's motion for default judgment . For the
reasons given below, I GRANT that motion.
September 13, 2017, Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural M
and Glass Workers Joint Apprenticeship And Journeyman
Training Fund ("Training Fund"), Trustees of the
Western Glaziers Retirement Fund ("Retirement
Fund"), Trustees of the Glazing Industry Promotion Fund
("Promotion Fund") (collectively "Trustees of
the Glaziers") filed a complaint against Defendant
Highland Glass LLC, alleging breach of collective bargaining
agreement and ERISA violations pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(3), § 1132(e)(1), and § 1145. . Highland
Glass never responded to Trustees of the Glaziers's
complaint. As a result, Trustees of the Glaziers moved for
default judgment pursuant to 55(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. .
of the Glaziers's allegations stem from Highland
Glass's failure (1) to pay its fringe benefit
contributions to Promotion Fund from November 2015 through
June 2016; and (2) to timely pay its fringe benefit
contributions to Retirement Fund and Training Fund from
November 2015 through June 2016 and to all parties from July
2016 through November 2016 and from February 2017 through
April 2017.  at 4-5.
of the Glaziers now seek the following in damages: for
Highland Glass's failure to pay Promotion Fund, $2,
477.30 in unpaid contributions, $508.93 in interest from the
unpaid contributions, and $247.73 in liquidated damages; for
Highland Glass's failure to timely pay all parties, $1,
414.54 in interest and $22, 147.55 in liquidated damages.
Additionally, Trustees of the Glaziers seek $2, 025.00 in
attorney fees and $715.21 in costs.  at 1-2. As evidence
of these amounts, Trustees of the Glaziers submitted
declarations from Cary Cadanou , James Watts , Todd
Springer , and Ryan Stephens .
entry of default, "the factual allegations of the
complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages,
will be taken as true." TeleVideo Sys, Inc. v.
Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)
(quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Grp, 559 F.2d 557,
560 (9th Cir. 1977)). As for damages, under Rule 55(b)(1),
the district court clerk is authorized to enter a default
judgment if the plaintiffs claim "is for a sum certain
or a sum that can be made certain by computation against a
defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing." A
sum is certain when "no doubt remains as to the amount
to which a plaintiff is entitled as a result of the
defendant's default." Franchise Holding II, LLC
v. Huntington Rests. Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 928 (9th
aside from the attorney fees, each claim is for a sum
certain. The parties agreed that Highland Glass would (1) pay
fringe benefit contributions on behalf of its employees in
the form of $0.20 per hour worked, , (2) pay liquidated
damages on unpaid or late contributions in the amount equal
to 10% of the owed contribution, , and (3) pay interest on
unpaid or late contribution payments at the rate of 12% per
annum from the due date until received, . The amount
Trustees of the Glaziers seeks in damages reflects the terms
of that agreement. Thus, there is no doubt as to the amount
to which Trustees of the Glaziers are entitled as a result of
Highlands Glass's default. Accordingly, the
contributions, liquidated damages, and interest are "for
a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by
computation" and default judgment can be entered.
the attorney fees, under the collective bargaining agreement,
Trustees of the Glaziers are entitled to recover
"reasonable attorney fees" in the event of
litigation.  at 5. Reasonable attorney fees are not a sum
certain calculation. Branded Online Inc. v. Holden
LLC, No. SACV15-0390-DOC, 2016 WL 8849024, at *1 (CD.
Cal. Jan. 8, 2016); see also Combs v. Coal & Mineral
Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 105 F.R.D 472, 475 (D.D.C. 1984).
Where a contract or statute calls for "reasonable
attorney fees, " the court must determine what is
reasonable. Combs, 105 F.R.D at 475.
determine if attorney fees are reasonable in two steps.
First, I multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by
a reasonable hourly rate. Here, the attorneys spent 9 hours
on this case and charged $225.00 per hour for a total of $2,
025.00. [11-A]. Second, I determine if the total amount
should be adjusted to accurately reflect a reasonable fee.
Monster Energy Co. v. Sainte Claire, No. ED
CV17-1111 PA, 2017 WL 8220421, at *3 (CD. Cal. Oct. 13,
2017). Here, I do not need to do so because the amount
calculated reflects a reasonable fee. The two attorneys
involved in this case have spent their lengthy careers-over
50 years collectively-practicing in this field. .
Considering the extensive experience the attorneys have, I
find that $225.00 per hour is a reasonable rate. I also find
that 9 hours is a short amount of time to complete matters
related to this lawsuit. Finally, I find that the following
costs are reasonable, necessary expenses: a $400.00 filing
fee, a $295.21 service cost, and a $20.00 prevailing party
fee for a total of $715.21. . Accordingly, I find the
attorney fees and costs reasonable.
reasons given above, I GRANT default judgment and award the
following in damages: to Promotion fund $2, 477.30 in unpaid
contributions, $508.93 in interest from the unpaid
contributions with interest continuing to accrue on the
amount of the unpaid fringe benefit contributions at the rate
of 12% per annum from January 1, 2018, through entry of
judgment, and $247.73 in liquidated damages; to all