Carpenters Southwest Administrative Corporation et al v. JT Builders Inc et al
| Board of Trustees for the Carpenters Southwest Trusts and Carpenters Southwest Administrative Corporation |
| Does, JT Builders Inc, Platte River Insurance Company, Corey James Trimmer and John Michael Trimmer |
| 2:2013cv05946 |
| August 14, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Suzanne H. Segal |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
41
SECOND CORRECTED JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC 4/24/14 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew : AS TO PLANTIFFS FIRST CLAIM for relief against Defendant JT Builders, Inc., a Nevada corporation, doing business as JT Builders Millwork, Inc. in theamount of $177,690.12 for the following: 1. Unpaid contributions: $84,597.51.2. Liquidated damages: $59,408.62. 3. Interest on the unpaid contributions pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) (7 percent per annum) pursuant to the Trust Agreements from the due d ate to billing dates: $57.31. 4. Audit Fees: $117.60.5. Interest from due dates to January 21, 2014: $27,025.46; 6. Attorneys fees pursuant to L.R. 55-3: $6,483.62; 7. Plus costs to be determined after entry of judgment.8. Pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), this judgment shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum. AS TO PLAINTIFFS FOURTH CLAIM for relief againstDefendant John Michael Trimmer, also known as John Trimmer, an individual in the amount of $159,6 51.66 for the following:1. Balance on Personal Guarantee: $137,074.15. 2. Interest on the balance from March 31, 2012 to January 21, 2014 (accruing at $17.31 per day or 7 percent per annum): $16,236.03. 3. Attorneys fees pursuant to Local Rule 55-3: $6,341.48. 4. Plus costs to be determined after entry of judgment. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), this judgmentshall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum. (jre)
|
|
Filing
34
Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Denial of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 32 ; Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 25 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.After reconsideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Entryof Default Judgment, Default Judgment is herebyGRANTED. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 25 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The procedural requirements of Local Rule 55-1 (c, d) are not met in this case. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for DefaultJudgment and Discharge of Stakeholder and for Attorneys' Fees. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
24
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The file in this case lacks the papers that would show it is being timely prosecuted, as reflected below. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than December 13, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above d ate, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted diligently: PLAINTIFFS FILING OF A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. (jre)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
