United States District Court, D. Hawaii
TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAII LABORERS' TRUST FUNDS et al., Plaintiffs,
TAU MASONRY, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company, and TAUSINGA HAFOKA, individually, and dba TAU MASONRY, Defendants.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, ASHLEY K. IKEDA, JERRY P.S.
CHANG Attorneys for Plaintiffs TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAII
LABORERS' TRUST FUNDS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS TAU
MASONRY, LLC, A HAWAII LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND
TAUSINGA HAFOKA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DBA TAU MASONRY
Kenneth J. Mansfield United States Magistrate Judge.
HAWAII LABORERS' TRUST FUNDS (“Plaintiffs” or
“Trust Funds”) Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment Against Defendants TAU MASONRY, LLC, a Hawaii
Limited Liability Company, and TAUSINGA HAFOKA, individually,
and dba TAU MASONRY (“Defendants”), having come
on for hearing before the Honorable Kenneth J. Mansfield,
Magistrate Judge on August 30, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. with Jerry
P.S. Chang, Esq. appearing for Plaintiffs, and no other party
appearing. The Defendants have made no opposition, appearance
or other communications, and the Court having read the
memoranda, declarations, and exhibits in support thereto, the
Court also citing to Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470
(9th Cir. 1986), having considered the evidence presented,
and having heard oral argument, and being fully advised in
the premises and good cause appearing therefor, the Court
FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT
Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against
Court bases its recommendation upon the following findings:
Defendant TAU MASONRY, LLC is a limited liability company
doing business in the State of Hawaii. Defendant TAUSINGA
HAFOKA is an individual doing business in the State of Hawaii
as TAU MASONRY.
Defendants entered into a Laborers' Project Agreement
Masonry Contractors (“Project Agreement”) binding
them to the Labor Agreement Covering Construction Masonry
Laborers in the State of Hawaii, with the Laborers'
International Union of North America, Local 368
(“Union”) and the Trust Agreements appurtenant
thereto, which said Agreements obligated Defendants to make
contributions to the Trust Funds for each hour of work
performed by a covered employee in Defendants'
employment. The Project Agreement binding Defendants to the
Labor Agreement Covering Construction Masonry Laborers in the
State of Hawaii is dated June 30, 2016, and is Exhibit
“A” to the Complaint. [Doc. Nos. 1-1, and 1,
Pursuant to the Labor Agreement Covering Construction Masonry
Laborers in the State of Hawaii (“Labor
Agreement” or “CBA”), Defendants not only
agreed to make contributions to the various Trust Funds, but
agreed to pay them on a monthly basis and to submit monthly
reports showing the monthly total of hours worked for each
employee covered by the CBA. Pursuant to the Labor Agreement,
Defendants also agreed to allow the Trust Funds'
representatives to audit their records and agreed to provide
the Trust Funds with “information and records
necessary” to administer the various Trust Funds. [Doc.
Pursuant to the Labor Agreement, Defendants agreed that if
the Trust Funds were required to bring legal action to
recover delinquent contributions, Defendants would be liable
for the delinquent contributions, plus liquidated damages of
$20 or 20%, per fund, of the delinquency (whichever was
higher) and interest at the rate of 12%.
Pursuant to the Labor Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred if the
Trust Funds were required to retain legal counsel for the
collection of any delinquency.
of the date of the Complaint filed on May 17, 2018 [Doc. No.
1], by virtue of the subject agreements, based upon the
January 2017 report and August 2016 to June 2017 audit,
Defendants owed $5, 912.39 in unpaid contributions and $3,
459.05 in liquidated damages, and interest (12%) under the CBA
on unpaid contributions to April 30, 2018 of $853.48 ($1.94
per diem), for a total then due of $10, 224.92. [Doc. 18-3]
(“Tonini Decl.” ¶9).
to Defendant's failure to file an answer or respond to
the Complaint, a Request for Entry of Default was filed
herein on June 22, 2018 [Doc. No. 14] and Default was entered
by the Court on June 25, 2018 [Doc. No. 15].
Plaintiffs then filed their Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment against Defendants on July 23, 2018 [Doc. No. 18].
According to the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, the