Quantcast

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Labor union funds granted more than $20,000 in suit against Brunk Industries

Lawsuits
Union

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted in part a motion for default judgment for a labor union in the state in its suit over allegations of outstanding employee benefit contributions.

According to the court decision, the defendant, Brunk Industries, had agreements with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs include the board of trustees representing Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California.

Judge William Alsup noted in the Jan. 27 order that the factors were in place for the motion to be granted, which included that the lawsuit was the plaintiffs' opportunity to remedy the situation, as well as an issue over whether facts in the case were disputed as the defendant has not answered the complaint.  

“Plaintiffs properly served defendant and there is no evidence in the record that defendant’s failure to appear and otherwise defend this action was the result of excusable neglect,” the order stated. 

The plaintiffs were granted $23,480.42 by the court for damages, $6,831 in fees, and $584.80 in costs.

“The complaint, filed and served in July 2018, alleges that defendant submitted electronic contribution reports setting forth the hours worked by the employees. Nevertheless, defendant failed to pay contributions due for work performed by its employees totaling $23,480.42 in fringe benefit contributions,” Alsup wrote.

“Defendant breached its agreement with plaintiffs when it failed to pay contributions ... Defendant’s default triggered the filing of the instant suit for recovery, in response to which defendant has taken no action. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment on this claim against defendant,” the court opinion stated

More News