Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada v. Strong Man Services, Inc., 2:16-cv-04495-SJO (SKx). (2017)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20170920800 Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER ON SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT S. JAMES OTERO , District Judge . Pursuant to the Stipulation by and between Plaintiffs Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (the "Pension Plan"); the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (the "Health Plan); the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 88 Section 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan"); the Sheet Meta
More

ORDER ON SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Stipulation by and between Plaintiffs Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (the "Pension Plan"); the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (the "Health Plan); the Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 88 Section 401(k) Plan (the "401(k) Plan"); the Sheet Metal Workers Local 88 Retiree Health Plan (the "Retiree Fund"); the Sheet Metal Workers Local 88 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund Inc. (the "JATC"); the Local 88 Industry Stabilization Program (the "Industry Stabilization Program); and the SMACNA of Southern Nevada (aka Southern Nevada Air Conditioning & Sheet Metal Contractors' Association, Inc.) Trades Program ("Industry Fund") and International Association of Sheet Metal Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Local Union No. 88 Dues (the "Dues Fund") (collectively the "Plans" or "Trust Funds"), and Defendants, JOHN FREDERICK CAPURRO and JASON RUSSELL HALES (collectively "Individual Defendants"); and STRONG MAN SERVICES, INC. d/b/a S M S MECHANICAL ("Company"), the Court has considered the matter fully and concluded that good cause exists to approve the parties' Stipulation in its entirety.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

1. That the Company and Individual Defendants are indebted to the Plans in the total amount of $304,006.00 as follows: contributions in the amount of $72,489.76 for the delinquent work months of May 2017 through July 2017; $196,001.46 in liquidated damages for late payment or nonpayment of contributions for the work months of June 2014 through December 2014, January 2015 through December 2015, January 2016 through February 2016, October 2016, December 2016, February 2017 through March 2017, May 2017 through July 2017; $23,014.78 in interest for late payment or nonpayment of contributions for the work months of June 2014 through December 2014, January 2015 through December 2015, January 2016 through February 2016, October 2016, December 2016, February 2017 through March 2017, May 2017 through July 2017; and attorney's fees in the amount of $12,500.00.

2. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plans and against the Company and Individual Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $304,006.00 for delinquent employee benefit plan contributions, audit contributions, accrued liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs, together with post-judgment interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum as of the date of the Judgment.

3. This Supplemental Stipulation for Judgment does not supersede or replace the prior Stipulation for Judgment entered in this case on June 28, 2016 nor the Order on Stipulation for Judgment entered on July 1, 2016. This Supplemental Stipulation for Judgment only applies to the delinquencies that were accrued for the work months of May 2017 through July 2017, after the initial Order on Stipulation for Judgment was entered.

4. This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter through December 1, 2018 to enforce the terms of any judgment entered hereunder, to order appropriate injunctive and equitable relief, to make appropriate orders of contempt, and to increase the amount of judgment based upon additional sums owed to the Plans by Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer