Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS' PENSION PLAN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. HENDERSON MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC., 2:14-CV-03996-CAS(JZx). (2015)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20150109475 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT CHRISTINA A. SYNDER, 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 ("Pension Plan"); Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada ("Health Plan"); Board of Trustees of the Southern California Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee ("JATC"); Board of Tru
More

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT

CHRISTINA A. SYNDER, 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 ("Pension Plan"); Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Health Plan of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada ("Health Plan"); Board of Trustees of the Southern California Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee ("JATC"); Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Local 105 Retiree Health Plan ("Retirees Plan"); Board of Trustees of the Southern California Sheet Metal Workers' 401(a) Plan ("401(a) Plan"); Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 105 Union Dues Check-Off and Deferred Savings Fund ("Dues and Savings Fund"); Board of Trustees of the Southern California Labor Management Cooperation Trust ("LMCT"); and Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Industry Fund of Los Angeles ("Industry Fund") (collectively the "Plans" or "Trust Funds"), and Defendant, JAMES PAUL LEE, III ("Individual Defendant"); and HENDERSON MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC. ("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 Defendant are indebted to the Plans in the total amount of $272,345.03 as follows: contributions (including the "Savings Deferral" which are wages deducted from employee paychecks) in the amount of $152,423.39 for the delinquent work months of July 2013 through November 2013 and January 2014 and April 2014 and June 2014 through April 2015; $27,532.78 in audit contributions conducted for the period of June 2009 through September 2013; $51,592.57 in liquidated damages for late payment or nonpayment of contributions for the work months of October 2009, March 2010 through December 2010, January 2011 through April 2011, July 2011, September 2011 through November 2011, January 2012 through December 2012, February 2013 through October 2013 and December 2013, January 2014 through March 2014 and May 2014 through September 2014; $25,796.29 in interest for late payment or nonpayment of contributions for the work months of October 2009, March 2010 through December 2010, January 2011 through April 2011, July 2011, September 2011 through November 2011, January 2012 through December 2012, February 2013 through October 2013 and December 2013, January 2014 through March 2014 and May 2014 through September 2014; and attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000.00.

2. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plans and against the Company and Individual Defendant, jointly and severally, in the amount of $272,345.03 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 Court retains jurisdiction over this matter through September 15, 2016 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