1 || Christopher M. Humes Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 2 || BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 3 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614 4 || Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 5 || Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 6 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 | THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CASE NO.: 2:23-ev-01633-JAD-NJK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND 12 | LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND 13 | LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiffs, is | y ECF No. 67 16 | SENTINEL MAINTENANCE OF LAS VEGAS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, SMI, 17 | LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, SENTINEL 2, LLC fik/a SMI LLC, a Nevada 18 || limited liability company, SENTINEL 1, LLC f/k/a Sentinel Maintenance of Las Vegas, LLC, a 19 || Nevada limited liability company 20 Defendants. 21 22 Presently before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 67) filed by 23 | Plaintiffs, Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Plan and the 24 || Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust (collectively, the “Pension Trust”). Being 25 | fully advised, and good cause appearing the Court finds and orders as follows: 26 | I. Background. 27 1. On October 31, 2024, the Pension Trust filed a motion for summary judgment 28 || against Defendants Sentinel Maintenance of Las Vegas, LLC and SMI, LLC (the “New Sentinel

1 || Entities”). See ECF No. 42. 2 2. On August 14, 2025, this Court granted the motion for summary judgment. 3 3. Within this Court’s Order Granting the Pension Trust’s Motion for Summary 4 || Judgment, this Court found that the total amount due in successor liability was $1,288,521.04. See 5 || ECF No. 65 at 19:14—22:3. See ECF No. 65. 6 4. Within this calculation, this Court concluded that the total amount of liquidated 7 || damages due was 20% of the unpaid contributions, based on

(g)(2)(C)(i1). See 8 || ECF No. 65 at 21:6—22:3. This put the total liquidated damages due at $168,577.60—which is 9 || $108,477.84 less than the awarded interest. 10 5. On September 2, 2025, the Pension Trust filed a motion for reconsideration in which 11 || it argued that

(g)(2)(C) requires the amount of liquidated damages be equal to the : 12 || terest amount when the interest is greater than a 20% liquidated damages award. See ECF No. 67 13 || at 3:8-6:16. 14 6. On September 22, 2025, this Court approved a stipulation allowing the New 15 || Sentinel Entities additional time to respond to the Pension Trust’s motion for reconsideration, 16 || giving the New Sentinel Entities until September 30, 2025, to respond. See ECF No. 69. 17 7. That enlarged deadline passed with no response to the motion for reconsideration, 18 || so the motion stands unopposed. 19 | IL. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. 20 8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “any order or other decision 21 || . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the mghts and liabilities of fewer than all the 22 || parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time 23 || before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ mghts and 24 || liabilities.” (emphasis added). 25 9. To that end, federal courts have the authority under both Rule 54(b) and their 26 || inherent authority to rescind, reconsider, or modify an interlocutory order. See City of Los 27 || Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper,

(9th Cir. 2001); Smith v. 28 | Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2013); L.R. 59-1.

1 10. Within its Order Granting Summary Judgment, this Court explicitly stated that it 2 was not entering judgment or partial final judgment, making reconsideration under Rule 54(b) 3 appropriate. See ECF No. 65 at 22:11-12. 4 11. This court’s local rule 59-1 contemplates reconsideration of an interlocutory order 5 if “(1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or 6 response was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 7 unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” L.R. 59-1(a). 8 12. This Court recently granted the Pension Trust’s motion for summary judgment, 9 finding that the New Sentinel were successors of Sentinel 2, LLC fka SMI, LLC (“Old SMI”) and 10 therefore liable for Old SMI’s withdrawal liability owed to the Pension Trust. See ECF No. 65. 11 13. This Court addressed the damages owed to the Pension Trust, identifying the 12 amounts owed by the New Sentinel Entities, consisting of the withdrawal liability, interest and 13 liquidated damages. ECF No. 65 at 19:14-22:3. 14 14. With respect to liquidated damages, this Court found that the liquidated damages 15 should be limited to 20% of the amount owed. ECF No. 65 at 21:6-22:1. 16 15. The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”) instructs 17 that a civil action to compel an employer to pay withdrawal liability is to be treated as a civil 18 action to recover unpaid benefit contributions. See

(b). 19 16. ERISA, in turn, explains the amounts that are owed in such a suit for delinquent 20 contributions at

(g)(2), which states in relevant part: 21 22 // 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 (2) In any action under this subchapter by a fiduciary for or on behalf 2 of a plan to enforce section 1145 of this title in which a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded, the court shall award the plan— 3 (A) the unpaid contributions, (B) interest on the unpaid contributions, 4 (C) an amount equal to the greater of— (i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or 5 (ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such 6 higher percentage as may be permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined by 7 the court under subparagraph (A), (D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, to be 8 paid by the defendant, and (E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems 9 appropriate. 10

(g)(2) (emphasis added). 11 17. Under this statute, when the amount of interest exceeds 20% of the withdrawal 12 liability, this Court is required to award another amount equal to the interest calculation. See, e.g., 13 Trs. of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Loc. 13 Defined Contribution Pension Tr. for S. 14 Nevada v. Marbella Flooring, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-00510-GMN,

, at *6 (D. Nev. 15 Dec. 2, 2011) (“Plaintiffs are entitled to double their prejudgment interest collectable because that 16 amount is higher than the liquidated damages allowable under the collective bargaining 17 agreement.”); Trs. of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Loc. No. 3 Health & Welfare Tr. v. 18 Reynolds Elec. & Eng’g Co.,

, 609 n. 12 (D. Nev. 1990) (“An additional 19 $17,146.74 of interest was added pursuant to the double interest provision of

1132(g)(2)(C).”); Lewart v. Woodhull Care Ctr. Assocs.,

, 885 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. 21 1982) (“In addition, federal law provides for double interest.”); Bd. of Trs. of Laborers Health & 22 Welfare Tr. Fund for N. California v. Breneman, Inc., No. 16-CV-01640-YGR,

4516917, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) (“Cement Masons Trust Funds are also entitled to an 24 additional award in an amount equal to the greater of the interest on the unpaid contributions or 25 liquidated damages at the contract rate. Here, the interest exceeds the liquidated damages, and the 26 Court finds that Cement Masons Trust Funds are entitled to an additional award of interest.”). 27 18. This provision is mandatory and not subject to any reasonableness analysis. See 28 1 Moriarty v. Svec,

(7th Cir. 2005) (“Svec is required to pay interest and double 2 interest on the delinquent contributions. . . . While attorneys’ fees and costs must be ‘reasonable,’ 3 there is no such qualifier placed upon the award of interest and double interest.”); Nw. Adm’rs, 4 Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc.,

, 257 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1132(g)(2) is ‘mandatory 5 and not discretionary.’”); Holland v. Bibeau Const. Co.,

(D.C. Cir. 2014) (“The 6 text [of

(g)(2)] admits of no exceptions, and the district court awarded the Plan 7 double interest on the unpaid premiums within the limitations period.”) (interpreting the Coal Act, 8 which incorporates ERISA’s enforcement scheme). 9 19. As a result, the prior liquidated damages award in the Order Granting the Pension 10 Trust’s Motion for Summary Judgment was incorrect because the ERISA and MPPAA require 11 that the amount awarded for liquidated damages must mirror the interest amount. See

1132(g)(2)(C). This is because the interest amount is greater than the liquidated damages amount 13 of 20% of the withdrawal liability. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the prior award of $168,577.60 for liquidated damages 15 was in error. 16 It is ORDERED that the proper amount in liquidated damages is $277,055.44, set to mirror 17 the interest amount as required by

(g)(2)(C). 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / It is ORDERED that the Order Granting the Pension Trust’s Motion for Summary 2 || Judgment [ECF No. 65] at p. 22 is amended to reflect that Sentinel Maintenance of Las Vegas, 3 | LLC and SMI, LLC are subject to successor liability in the following amounts: 4 Withdrawal Liability $842,888 6 Interest $277,055.44 7 Liquidated Damages $277,055.44 8 Total: $1,396,998.88 9

UNITED STATES DISTRIGT JUDGE October 15, 2025 12 13 || Respectfully submitted by: BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 15 /s/ William D. Nobriga 16 || Christopher M. Humes, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 12782 William D. Nobriga, Esq., Nevada Bar No. 14931 17 || 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-4614 18 || Telephone: 702.382.2101 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28