United States District Court, N.D. California
October 3, 2005.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN MATEO HOTEL EMPLOYEES, et al., Plaintiffs,
GOOD-NITE INN INVESTMENT, LLC, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES BREYER, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their claim for breach of a
collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") by defendant. Pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), plaintiffs
seek to recover employee benefit contributions, liquidated
damages, and interest due for the months of November 2004 through
June 2005, as well as attorneys' fees. Defendant filed a
statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion.
Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Where the
moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it
must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that no genuine
issue of material fact remains, make a prima facie showing in
support of its position on that issue. See UA Local 343 v.
Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs have submitted evidence establishing a prima facie
case of breach of contract by the defendant. Defendant does not
oppose the evidence submitted and does not set forth facts
controverting plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs' claim for overdue
compensation is corroborated by the reporting forms. Plaintiffs
also correctly calculate the liquidated damages, according to the
CBA. While the CBA does not provide a value for the appropriate
interest rate and requires only "reasonable" attorneys' fees,
plaintiffs' calculations of a 4% interest rate and $180/hr
billing fee, as well as 12 attorney work-hours expended on this
claim, are reasonable.
After considering plaintiffs' motion and defendant's
non-opposition, the Court concludes that oral argument is
unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs are awarded $44,737.28.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.