Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cabinet Makers, Millmen and Industrial Carpenters Local 721 v. Commercial Wood Products Company

February 28, 2013

CABINET MAKERS, MILLMEN AND INDUSTRIAL CARPENTERS LOCAL 721, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMERCIAL WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND (2) ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RELEVANT PAYROLL RECORDS [Motion filed on January 24, 2013]

Before the Court is an Application for Default Judgment Against Commercial Wood Products Company and Request for an Order for Respondent to Produce Payroll Records filed by Cabinet Makers, Millmen and Industrial Carpenters Local 721 ("Cabinet Makers") (Doc. No. 12) ("Application"). The Court finds the Application appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After consideration of the papers in support of the Application, the Court (1) GRANTS Default Judgment in favor of Cabinet Makers and (2) ORDERS Defendant to produce relevant payroll records from August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2010, Cabinet Makers and the Company entered into a labor agreement. (Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Commercial Wood Products Company (Doc. No. 1) ("Petition") at ¶ 4.) The labor agreement had an arbitration clause which provided a four-step process for resolving disputes arising from the agreement, with the last step being arbitration. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

The labor agreement provided for a pre-scheduled wage increase every August 1, beginning August 1, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 7.) On or about August 22, 2011, Cabinet Makers filed a grievance against the company for not implementing the wage increases on August 1, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Unable to resolve their dispute with the Company, Cabinet Makers decided to pursue arbitration. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Cabinet Makers filed a petition to compel arbitration in a separate case before this Court. (See Cabinet Makers, Millmen and Industrial Carpenters Local 721 v. Commercial Wood Products Company, Case No. EDCV12-0024VAP(SPx) ("Arbitration Case"); see also Petition at ¶ 12.) On February 24, 2012, the Court entered an order compelling arbitration. (See Arbitration Case, Minute Order Granting Plaintiff's Petition to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 9); see also Petition at ¶ 13.)

The Company delayed proceeding with the arbitration, despite the Court's order. (Petition at ¶¶ 12-13.) On August 1, 2012, the Company failed to implement the second annual pre-scheduled pay increase. (Id. at 13)

On September 6, 2012, an arbitration hearing was held in San Bernardino, California, before arbitrator Philip Tamoush (the "Arbitrator"). (Petition at ¶ 14.) At the hearing, the following two issues were presented to the Arbitrator: (1) whether the filing for arbitration by the Union was timely; and if so, (2) whether the Company violated the labor agreement by withholding two scheduled wage increases (on August 1, 2011, and again on August 1, 2012). (Petition at ¶ 15.)

On October 9, 2012, the Arbitrator rendered his decision, determining that the arbitration request was timely and that the Company violated the labor agreement by withholding the two scheduled wage increases. (Id. at ¶ 16) The Arbitrator ordered the Company to pay the amount owed for the violation, determining that amount to be $18,256.88 (the "Arbitration Award"). (Id.) This amount was based on Cabinet Makers' review of the payroll records provided by the Company prior to the arbitration hearing, which did not include the total amount owed for the Company's violation with respect to the August 1, 2012 failure to increase wages.*fn1 (Id. at ¶ 16-17.)

On November 6, 2012, Cabinet Makers filed the Petition, pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Cabinet Makers filed proof of service on November 19, 2012. (See Doc. No. 8.) The Company did not file a response.

Cabinet Makers filed an Application for Entry of Default against the Company on December 18, 2012 (Doc. No. 9). On January 23, 2013, the Court entered default against the Company. (See Doc. No. 10.)

Cabinet Makers brought the instant Application on January 24, 2013, and seeks an entry of default judgment against the Company. Cabinet Makers also seeks for the Court to order the Company to produce relevant payroll records reflecting payments made to Cabinet Makers' employees between August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013. (Application at 5.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Default Judgment

Local Rule 55-1 provides that an application for default judgment must be accompanied by a declaration in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) setting forth: 1) when and against what party the default was entered; 2) the identification of the pleading to which default was entered; 3) whether the defaulting party is an infant or incompetent person, and if so, whether that person is represented by a general guardian, committee, conservator, or other representative; 4) that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply; and 5) that notice has been served on the defaulting party if required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.