United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
STEAMFITTERS UNION, LOCAL 420 WELFARE FUND, ET AL.
MEGRANT CORPORATION, ET AL.
BARCLAY SURRICK, J.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Default
Judgment. (ECF No. 6.) For the following reasons, the Motion
will be granted.
action, Plaintiffs include Local Union No. 420 of the United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (the
“Union”) and various trust funds. Plaintiffs bring
this action to collect delinquent employee benefit fund
contributions from Defendant Megrant Corporation, and
Megrant's owners and officers, Defendants Farid Mirian
and Jasmine Mirian (the “Individual Defendants”).
Complaint alleges that the Union is the exclusive
representative of all Megrant employees for purposes of
collective bargaining. (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) On March
20, 2017, Jasmine Mirian executed a Project Labor Agreement
(“PLA”), under which Megrant agreed to be bound
by the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and
the Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern
Pennsylvania, Inc. (the “CBA”) for Megrant's
work on the NYC MTA/Long Island Railroad Wantagh Station
Project. (Id. ¶ 11.) Under the CBA, Defendants
were required to submit monthly reports to Plaintiffs
documenting the hours worked and compensation paid to the
employees working under the CBA. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Defendants were also required to remit payment based on the
hours worked and compensation paid on behalf of Megrant
employees. (Id.) Between March 15, 2017 and June 6,
2017, Megrant employed Union members, but failed to submit
any reports or contributions to the Plaintiffs due under the
CBA. After Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, Defendants
submitted remittance reports that showed a total of $67,
479.68 in contributions that were due for work performed
under the CBA. (Mot. Default ¶ 7, ECF No. 6.) Those
delinquent payments have accrued interest and liquidated
damages pursuant to the CBA and ERISA. (Id.
Complaint was filed on July 17, 2017. Defendants were served
with the Complaint on August 1, 2017. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.)
Defendants have failed to file an Answer, or otherwise plead
or defend this action. On September 12, 2017, the Clerk of
the Court entered default against Defendants. (ECF No. 5.) On
September 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Default
Judgment. It has been two months and Defendants have not
responded to the Motion for Default Judgment. Nor has any
attorney entered an appearance on their behalf.
determine whether a default judgment is warranted, courts in
this circuit weigh three factors: (1) prejudice to the
plaintiff if default is denied; (2) whether the
defendant's delay is due to culpable conduct; and (3)
whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense.
Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.2d 154, 164 (3d Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). All the Chamberlain
factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment here.
will be prejudiced if the default is denied. Plaintiffs will
be required to make payments to its union members despite its
inability to collect contributions from Megrant that are due
under the CBA. Nat'l Elec. Benefit Fund v. FJM Elec.
Constr., LLC, No. 13-3057, 2015 WL 6750726, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. Nov. 5, 2015) (finding that plaintiff union would have
been prejudiced if default judgment were denied because it
was still required to make vested payments to participants
even if the employer failed to make the required
addition, Defendants' culpability is evident from the
fact that they failed to make contributions or respond in any
way to Plaintiffs' claims despite being put on notice.
See New Jersey Bldg. Laborers' Statewide Pension Fund
& Trustees Thereof v. Belmont Contracting Corp., No.
13-507, 2014 WL 3731267, at *2 (D.N.J. July 25, 2014)
(finding that the defendant “is culpable because it has
been served with notice of this action, but has failed to
Defendants do not appear to have a litigable defense. With
respect to Megrant Corporation, Section 1145 of ERISA
requires that “[e]very employer who is obligated to
make contributions to a plan or under the terms of a
collectively bargained agreement . . . make such
contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of
such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145. In
the event that an employer such as Megrant fails to make
contributions in violation of the CBA, the Court may award:
(A) the unpaid contributions;
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions;
(C) an amount equal to the ...