1 Bryce C. Loveland, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 10132 Christopher M. Humes, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 2 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 3 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 4 Telephone: (702) 382-2101 Facsimile: (702) 382-8135 5 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 6 Email: [email protected] 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 2:24-cv-02005-JAD-DJA 11 | PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 3 D 525 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST = AND PLAN; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FINDINGS OF FACT, 13 THE PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND UNION LOCAL 525 PENSION PLAN; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BF 14 AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 15 | UNION 525 APPRENTICE AND 16 JOURNEYMAN TRAINING TRUST FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA M7 Plaintiffs ECF No. 7 18 VS. Hearing date: 3/25/25 19 | TPM SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada limited 20 liability company, 71 Defendant. 22 33 Before the Court is the Plaintiffs,’ the Boards of Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust and Plan, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525

35 Pension Plan, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 525 Apprentice and Journeyman 36 Training Trust for Southern Nevada (collectively referred to as “Trust Funds”) Motion for Default

37 Judgment against Defendant TPM Services, LLC (“TPM Services”). Default having been entered

38 against Defendant, the Court having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Motion, being fully advised, and good

1 || cause appearing, the Court now makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. 2 I. ‘Findings of fact. 3 1. Plaintiffs a are the Trust Funds and are fiduciaries for purposes of the Employee 4 || Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”),

. 5 2. TPM Services acted as an employer within the State of Nevada employing persons 6 || (“Covered Employees”) who perform work covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) 7 || between TPM Services and the United Association of J ourneymen and Apprentices of Plumbing 8 | and Pipefitters Local 525. ? 3. The Trust Funds are ERISA employee benefit trust funds that provide benefits to 10 Covered Employees. . 4. The Trust Funds are established by Trust Agreements (“Trust Agreements”). = 12 5. Under ERISA and the Trust Agreements, TPM Services is obligated to make its 13 books and records available for a contract compliance review (“Audit”). 4 6. TPM Services has failed to adequately respond to the Trust Funds’ requests to make its books and records available for an Audit, by failing to make its books and records available in a satisfactory manner to enable the Trust Funds to complete the Audit. 7. The Trust Funds’ governing documents provide that if TPM Services fails to make its books and records available for an Audit, the Trust Funds are permitted to presume contributions in the amount of $250,000 for each year covered by the attempted audit. 8. The Trust Funds have repeatedly requested that TPM Services make its books and

9 records available for an Audit as required by ERISA and the Trust Agreements. 73 9. TPM Services has repeatedly refused to make its books and records sufficiently available for the Trust Funds to conduct an Audit.

25 10. TPM has failed to meet its obligations to remit employee benefit contributions to the Trust Funds as set forth in the CBA and Trust Agreements, and as required by

. 7 11. As a result of its delinquency, TPM is liable to the Trust Funds for unpaid 28 contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees.

1 II. Conclusions of Law. 2 1. “The general rule of law is that upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, 3 || except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 4 ||

, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S.,

(1944)). 5 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court to grant default judgment 6 || against a defendant who has failed to plead or defend an action. To determine whether a default 7 || judgment is appropriate, courts may consider the following factors: 8 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's 9 substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) 10 whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 12 || £itel v. McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986). 5 13 3. As to the first factor, the Trust Funds will suffer prejudice if default judgment is 14 || not entered because they “will likely be without other recourse for recovery if default judgment is 15 || not entered in their favor.” Tr. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13 Defined 16 || Contribution Pension Trust for S. Nev. v. Tile Concepts, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01067-GMN-GWF, 17 ||

(D. Nev. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Scudier, 53 18 || F-Supp.3d 1308, 1318 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). TPM Services 19 || has failed to meet its obligations to remit employee benefit contributions and has failed to 20 || participate in this action. Therefore, because the Trust Funds will have no recourse against TPM 31 || Services unless default judgment is granted, the first Eite/ factor favors the entry of default 92 || judgment. 23 4. The second and third Eite/ factors address the merits and sufficiency of a □□□□□□□□□□□ 24 || claim. Eitel,

. The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that TPM Services 25 || failed to meet its obligations to remit employee benefit contributions to the Trust Funds, as 26 || required under the CBA and Trust Agreements. As a result, TPM Services is liable to the Trust 27 || Funds for unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, audit fees and attorneys’ fees. 29 2g |} U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Thus, because TPM Services had default entered against it, it has admitted

1 || these facts, which should be taken as true. The second and third Fitel factors therefore favor the 2 || entry of default judgment. 3 5. The fourth Eite/ factor concerns the damages at stake in the case. The damages in 4 || this case are reasonable and well-documented, based on the governing documents and calculations 5 || laid out in the prior sections. In addition, damages in this case are dictated by statute. ERISA states 6 || that, in cases like this one, courts shall award unpaid contributions, interest on the unpaid 7 || contributions, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of the action, and other 8 || legal or equitable relief that the court determines appropriate.

(g)(2). This factor 9 || also favors the entry of default judgment. 10 6. Regarding the fifth Eite/ factor, there is no possibility of dispute concerning the 11 || material facts. Because TPM Services has had a default entered against it, the allegations in the 12 || complaint are deemed admitted and taken as true. Geddes v. United Fin. Group,

, 560 13 || (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Pope v. U.S.,

(1944)). Therefore, the fifth Eite/ factor also 14 || favors the entry of default judgment. 15 7. The sixth Eite/ factor demonstrates that excusable neglect is not a factor here. TPM 16 || Services’ failure to answer was not based on excusable neglect. The Complaint was filed on 17 || October 24, 2024. (ECF No. 1). A Summons was issued for TPM Services on October 25, 2024 18 || (ECF No. 3), and the TPM Services accepted service of the Summons and Complaint on November 19 || 21, 2024. (ECF No. 4). TPM Services did not file an Answer. The Trust Funds were then forced 20 || to file a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default on December 19, 2024. (ECF No. 5). TPM Services 21 || again failed to respond, which led to its failure to adequately plead or otherwise defend the suit, 22 || resulting in the entry of default on January 8, 2025. (ECF No. 6). In short, there is no evidence 23 || that TPM Services’ default was the result of excusable neglect. The sixth Eite/ factor favors the 24 || entry of a default judgment. 25 8. The seventh and final Eite/ factor also weighs in favor of entering default judgment. 26 || Despite the general policy that cases “should be decided on the merits whenever reasonably 27 || possible,” Fitel,

, when defendants fail to answer the complaint, a decision on the 28 || merits is “impractical, if not impossible.” Anzalone,

*7 (citing PepsiCo v. Cal.

1 || Sec. Cans,

(C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2002). “Thus, the preference to decide 2 || a case on the merits does not preclude a court from granting default judgment.” PepsiCo,

|| Supp.2d at 1177 (citing Kloepping v. Fireman’s Fund, No. C 94-2684 TEH,

(N_D. 4 || Cal. Feb. 13, 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor 5 || of the entry of a default judgment. 6 9. The damages set forth by the Trust Funds’ and their corresponding calculations are 7 || supported by the Trust Agreements, the Collection Policy, and 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(2). 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered against Defendant TPN 9 || Services, LLC for delinquent employee benefit contributions ($500,000), interest ($150,276 10 || liquidated damages ($150,276), and attorneys’ fees and costs ($20,782), for a total of $821,334. 11 | DATED this 28th day of March, 2025. 12 rec 3 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 . Respectfully submitted by: 17 || BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 18 || /s/ Christopher M. Humes Christopher M. Humes, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 19 | William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 20 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 21 || Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 23 24 25 26 27 28