LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
The parties to this ERISA unpaid contributions case executed a settlement agreement and stipulated to dismissal in January 2014. See Stipulation and Order for Dismissal, ECF No. 24. Plaintiff now moves to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that Defendants have failed to make required payments. See Motion, ECF No. 25. The court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and enters judgment against Defendants in the amount of $102,677.67, allocated as follows: (1) $96,040.67 in contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and pre-settlement attorney's fees; (2) $3,473.25 in post-settlement interest; and (3) $3,163.75 in post-settlement attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff the Board of Trustees are Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California, and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California (collectively, "Trust Funds"). See Motion, ECF No. 25 at 2. Each of the Trust Funds is an employee benefit plan created by a written Trust Agreement that is subject to section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") (29 U.S.C. § 186) and a multi-employer employee benefit plans within the meaning of sections 3, 4, and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), Pub. L. No. 93-406 (codified in part at 29 U.S.C. § 1002 et seq.). Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2.
Defendants John Clark Brisbin, individually, and doing business as Construction Development Systems, and Construction Development Systems are an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) and section 515 of ERISA and an employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of section 301 of the LMRA. Id. at 2-3. Defendants are a signatory employer to a collective bargaining agreement with the Northern California District Council of Laborers (the "Union"), which is a labor organization within the meaning of section 301 of the LMRA. Id. at 3. Defendants signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Union that incorporates the Laborers' Master Agreement, which incorporates the Trust Agreements establishing each of the Trust Funds. Id.
The Master Agreement obligated Defendants to pay certain fringe benefits contributions for all covered work performed by its employees. Id. at 3-4. If Defendants paid delinquent contributions, the Master Agreement obligated them to pay interest, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other collection costs, and provided for the audit of Defendants books and records so that Plaintiff could ascertain whether all fringe benefit contributions were timely paid. Id. at 4.
According to the Complaint, for the period June 2012 to February 2013, Defendants owed at least $24,788.13 in unpaid contributions. Id. at 4. They owed liquidated damages and interest of $11,667.82 for delinquent contributions for the period June 2010 through November 2012. Id. Finally, they owed liquidated damages and interest on of $2,966.85 on the unpaid contributions from June 2012 through January 2013. Id.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on April 24, 2013. See generally id. Defendant "John C. Brisbin a sole proprietorship, doing business as Construction Development Systems" appeared and answered Plaintiff's complaint. Answer, ECF No. 7 at 1. The parties consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction. See Plaintiff's Consent, ECF No. 6; Joint Case Management Conference Statement, ECF No. 8 at 3 (stating "[t]he Parties consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all purposes.").
On December 17, 2013, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement stating that they had reached a settlement and were in the process of finalizing the settlement documents. See Notice, ECF No. 21. The Settlement Agreement was fully executed on December 18, 2013. See Settlement Agreement, Lauziere Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 27-1 at 5. The Settlement Agreement contains the following relevant terms:
Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 27-1.
On January 16, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulation with Proposed Order to Dismiss Without Prejudice. See ECF No. 23. They notified the court that they had reached a settlement and that Defendants were making payments pursuant to their agreement. Id. at 2. They asked the court to maintain jurisdiction over the case until April 16, 2015. Id. On January 17, 2014, the court signed the parties' proposed order. See Order, ECF No. 24.
Plaintiff now says that Defendants have not made any of the payments required under the Settlement Agreement. Lauziere Decl., ECF No. 27, ¶ 11. On February 5, 2014, Plaintiff sent Defendants a letter notifying them that they were in default under the Settlement Agreement and that the Trust Funds would move to enforce the agreement if the default was not cured. See Lozano-Batista Decl., ECF No. 26, ¶ 4, Ex. A.
On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Motion, ECF No. 25. In light of Defendants' failure to make the required payments and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, they ask the court to award them the following: (1) $96,040.67 in contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees, as provided in the settlement agreement; (2) $3,473.25 in post-settlement interest; and (3) $3,163.75 in post-settlement attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 2.
The court held a hearing in the matter on June 18, 2014. See Minute Entry, ECF No. 31. Defendants did not appear at the hearing. Id.
"[C]ourts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement with respect to an action pending before it; the actual merits of the controversy become inconsequential." Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). Moreover, "disputes concerning a settlement agreement are governed by applicable state contract law." U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. S. City Refrigeration, Inc., No. C-09-3219 JCS, 2010 WL 1293522, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010).
As described above, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. That settlement agreement states that Defendants agreed to make certain payments to Plaintiffs by certain dates. Defendants have not made any payments and thus are in violation of the settlement agreement's terms. Further, Plaintiff sent Defendants the notice of default required by paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement. In such circumstances, the Settlement Agreement allows the court to enter a judgment against Defendants for $96,040.67 plus post-settlement interest and attorney's fees. Plaintiff establishes that it is entitled to $3,474.25 in post-settlement interest. See Lauziere Decl., ECF No. 27, ¶ 12. Plaintiff also asks for $3,163.75 in post-settlement attorney's fees. See Lozano-Batista Decl., ECF No. 26, ¶¶ 6-10, Ex. B. Counsel's rates of $290 and $345 per hour are reasonable. While counsel's billing records are insufficiently detailed for the court to say that the time spent on specific tasks was reasonable, 9.25 hours is a reasonable total amount of time to spend on collection activities, the default letter, the motion to enforce, and its supporting declarations. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff's motion to enforce and will enter judgment in the amounts requested by Plaintiff. Other courts in this district have seen fit to do the same in similar situations. See San Francisco Residence Club v. Amado, No. C09-2054 RS (JSC), 2012 WL 2119269, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2012); Geller v. Bowers, No. CV 11-00874 PSG, 2012 WL 1895961, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012); U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm., 2010 WL 1293522, at *3.
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that entry of the judgment is warranted and
This disposes of ECF No. 25.