O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE Case № 2:24-cv-07966-ODW (MAAx)

MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY

12 PENSION PLAN et al.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

13 Plaintiffs,

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

14 v. JUDGMENT [15]

15 MARSHALL FILM, LLC,

16 Defendant.

17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiffs Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Board 20 of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan, and Board of 21 Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan bring this action against Defendant 22 Marshall Film, LLC for breach of contract and violation of the Employee Retirement 23 Income Security Act (“ERISA”) § 515, 29 U.S.C. § 1145. (Compl. ¶¶ 12–21, ECF 24 No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek to recover delinquent contributions, interest, liquidated damages, 25 audit costs, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id., Prayer.) Marshall Film failed to appear 26 and defend, and Plaintiffs now move for entry of default judgment. (Mem. P. & A. ISO 27 28 1 Mot. Default J. (“Motion” or “Mot.”), ECF No. 15-1.) For the reasons that follow, the 2 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.1 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiffs Boards of Directors are the governing bodies of their respective jointly 5 administered Labor-Management Trust Funds, pursuant to the Labor Management 6 Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). The Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan and 7 the Motion Picture Industry Account Plan are employee pension benefit plans as defined 8 under ERISA. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Also as defined under ERISA, the Motion Picture Industry 9 Health Plan (together with the Pension Plan and the Account Plan, the “Plans”) is an 10 employee welfare benefit plan. (Id.) The Plans are multiemployer plans as defined by 11 ERISA. (Id.) Plaintiffs are fiduciaries of the Plans, pursuant to ERISA. (Id.) The Plans 12 were established pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) between 13 employers, employer associations, and the International Alliance of Theatrical 14 Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, 15 AFL-CIO (“IATSE”). (Id.) At all times relevant, Marshall Film was an employer 16 within the meaning of ERISA. (Id. ¶ 5.) 17 On or about December 20, 2015, Marshall Film and IATSE entered into two 18 agreements: (1) Project Agreement—Low Budget Theatrical Agreement 2014–2016, 19 and (2) Single Production Signatory Memorandum Agreement (together, “the 20 Agreements”). (Id. ¶ 8.) On or about March 8, 2016, Marshall Film executed an IATSE 21 Trust Acceptance. (Id. ¶ 9.) By executing the Trust Acceptance, Marshall bound itself 22 to the Declarations of Trust establishing the Plans (“Trust Agreements”). (Id. ¶ 9.) The 23 Trust Agreements obligated Marshall Film to forward a weekly remittance report and 24 contributions owed to the Plans for the total hours worked by or guaranteed to all 25 covered employees. (Id. ¶ 10.) Contributions are considered delinquent if not received 26 within ten working days from the date due. (Id.) If delinquent, the Trust Agreements 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 provide that Marshall Film would be liable for (1) contributions owed; (2) interest at 2 one percent a month until payment; (3) liquidated damages equal to the greater of 20% 3 of contributions or amount of interest due; and (4) expenses of collection, including 4 accountants’ fees, auditors’ fees, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Id. ¶ 11.) 5 On October 23, 2020, the Plans completed an audit of Marshall Film’s records. 6 (Id. ¶ 14.) The Plans found that Marshall Film had failed to pay $8,115.70 in 7 contributions for hours worked by Marshall Film’s employees during the period of 8 October 4, 2015, to August 12, 2017. (Id.) The audit cost $6,075.00. (Id. ¶ 15.) On 9 November 10, 2021, Plaintiffs demanded payment for the unpaid contributions, 10 liquidated damages, interest, and audit costs, totaling $21,372.72. (Id. ¶ 17.) Marshall 11 Film did not respond. (Id.) On December 20, 2021, Plaintiffs made a final demand. 12 (Id.) Marshall still did not respond, and the delinquent contributions and assessments 13 remain outstanding. (See id.) 14 Accordingly, on September 18, 2024, Plaintiffs brought this action against 15 Marshall Film to recover delinquent contributions, accruing interest, liquidated 16 damages, and working assessments owed (the “Obligations”), as well as attorneys’ fees 17 and costs incurred in collecting the Obligations. (See id., Prayer.) Plaintiffs assert two 18 causes of action: (1) breach of the Agreements and the Trust Agreements, and 19 (2) violation of ERISA due to the breach of the Agreements and the Trust Agreements. 20 (Id. ¶¶ 12–21.) 21 On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs served Marshall Film. (Proof Service Compl., 22 ECF No. 10.) However, Marshall Film did not appear or defend the case. Accordingly, 23 upon Plaintiffs’ request, on November 27, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered Marshall 24 Film’s default. (Default, ECF No. 14.) On May 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this motion 25 for default judgment against Marshall Film. (Mot.) 26 III. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 55(b) authorizes a district court to grant 28 a default judgment after the Clerk enters default under Rule 55(a). However, before a 1 court can enter a default judgment against a defendant, the plaintiff must satisfy the 2 procedural requirements in Rules 54(c) and 55, and Central District Civil Local 3 Rules 55-1 and 55-2. Even if these procedural requirements are satisfied, “[a] 4 defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered 5 judgment.” PepsiCo, Inc., v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 6 2002) (citing Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924–25 (9th Cir. 1986)). Instead, “[t]he 7 district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a discretionary one.” 8 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (collecting cases). 9 Generally, after the Clerk enters a default, the defendant’s liability is conclusively 10 established, and the well-pleaded factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint “will 11 be taken as true,” except those pertaining to the amount of damages. TeleVideo Sys., 12 Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (quoting Geddes 13 v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). The court need not make 14 detailed findings of fact when entering default judgment, except as to damages. See 15 Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 IV. DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiffs satisfy the procedural requirements for default judgment, establish that 18 entry of default judgment against Marshall Film is substantively appropriate, and 19 demonstrate that the requested relief is warranted. 20 A. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 21 Local Rule 55-1 requires that the movant establish: (1) when and against which 22 party default was entered; (2) the pleading on which default was entered; (3) whether 23 the defaulting party is a minor or incompetent person; (4) that the Servicemembers Civil 24 Relief Act does not apply; and (5) that the defaulting party was properly served with 25 notice, if required under Rule 55(b)(2). In turn, Rule 55(b)(2) requires written notice 26 on the defaulting party if that party “has appeared personally or by a representative.” 27 Plaintiffs meet these requirements. On November 27, 2024, the Clerk entered 28 default against Marshall Film as to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (See Default.) Counsel for 1 Plaintiffs submits declaration testimony that Marshall Film is not a minor or 2 incompetent person and that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not apply. (Decl. 3 Kathryn J. Halford ISO Mot. (“Halford Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3, ECF No. 15-11.) Finally, 4 although service of the Motion is not required because Marshall Film has not appeared, 5 Plaintiffs nonetheless served Marshall Film with the Motion. (Proof Service Mot., ECF 6 No. 16.) 7 Thus, Plaintiffs satisfy the procedural requirements for entry of default judgment. 8 B. EITEL FACTORS 9 In considering whether entry of default judgment is warranted, courts consider 10 the “Eitel factors”: “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff”; “(2) the merits of 11 plaintiff’s substantive claim”; “(3) the sufficiency of the complaint”; “(4) the sum of 12 money at stake”; (5) the possibility of a material factual dispute; “(6) whether the 13 default was due to excusable neglect”; and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on 14 the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). “Of all the 15 Eitel factors, courts often consider the second and third factors to be the most 16 important.” Viet. Reform Party v. Viet Tan-Viet. Reform Party, 416 F. Supp. 3d 948, 962 17 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court considers these 18 factors first. 19 1. Second & Third Eitel Factors 20 The second and third Eitel factors require a plaintiff to “state a claim on which 21 the [plaintiff] may recover.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1175 (alteration in original). 22 Although well-pleaded allegations are taken as true, “claims which are legally 23 insufficient[] are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 24 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992). 25 Plaintiffs assert two causes of action for payment of the Obligations based on 26 Marshall Film’s breach of the Agreements: a breach of contract, (Compl. ¶¶ 12–19), and 27 a violation of ERISA § 515, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, (id. ¶¶ 20–21). As Plaintiffs sufficiently 28 1 state a claim under ERISA, and that claim is inextricably intertwined with the breach of 2 contract claim, the Court needs only address the ERISA violation claim. 3 Under ERISA, “[e]very employer who is obligated to make contributions to a 4 multiemployer plan . . . shall . . . make such contributions in accordance with the terms 5 and conditions of such plan or such agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 1145; see also Winterrowd 6 v. David Freedman & Co., 724 F.2d 823, 826 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that employer’s 7 failure to contribute agreed-upon amount to pension fund was an ERISA violation). If 8 the employer fails to make contributions as required, the plan or a plan fiduciary may 9 bring an action to recover the unpaid contributions. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)(1); see, 10 e.g., Bd. of Trs. of Bay Area Roofers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Westech Roofing, 11 42 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1227 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 12 Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to the Agreements, Trust Agreements, and ERISA, 13 Marshall Film was an employer obligated to submit monthly reports and contributions 14 to the Plans under ERISA § 515. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 10.) They further allege that Marshall 15 Film failed to submit reports and pay contributions for work performed by its employees 16 during the period of October 4, 2015, to August 12, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 21; Decl. Chris 17 Tashchyan ISO Mot. (“Tashchyan Decl.”) ¶ 11, ECF No. 15-2.) Taken as true, Marshall 18 Film’s failure to submit reports and pay the required contributions violates ERISA 19 § 515. 20 Thus, Plaintiffs sufficiently plead a meritorious claim against Marshall Film to 21 recover delinquent contributions under ERISA, and therefore the second and third Eitel 22 factors favor entry of default judgment. 23 2. Remaining Eitel Factors 24 On balance, the remaining Eitel factors also weigh in favor of entering default 25 judgment against Marshall Film. To begin, the first and fourth Eitel factors—possibility 26 of prejudice and sum of money at stake—favor default judgment. See Eitel, 782 F.2d 27 at 1471–72. Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice absent entry of default judgment because 28 they would otherwise have no recourse for Marshall Film’s unpaid contributions. 1 Further, as discussed below, the sum of money Plaintiffs seek is directly proportionate 2 to the amount Marshall Film owe and failed to pay. 3 The fifth and sixth factors—possibility of dispute and excusable neglect—also 4 weigh in favor of entering default judgment. See id. Plaintiffs’ allegations are accepted 5 as true on default, and Marshall Film may not now “challenge the accuracy of the 6 allegations in the complaint.” Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enters., Inc., 725 F. Supp. 7 2d 916, 922 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiffs support their claims with evidence 8 demonstrating Marshall Film owes the Plans certain unpaid contributions, and the 9 Court’s review of the record reveals “no factual disputes . . . that preclude the entry of 10 default judgment.” Id. Further, nothing in the record suggests Marshall Film’s failure 11 to appear is a result of excusable neglect. 12 Finally, the seventh factor—policy favoring decisions on the merits—always 13 weighs in a defaulting defendant’s favor. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. However, 14 because Marshall Film’s failure to appear in this action prevents the Court from reaching 15 a decision on the merits, this factor does not prevent the Court from entering judgment 16 by default. See Duralar Techs. LLC v. Plasma Coating Techs., Inc., 848 F. App’x 252, 17 255 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming entry of default judgment where all factors except the 18 seventh weighed in the plaintiff’s favor). 19 In sum, the Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment against 20 Marshall Film on Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 21 C. REQUESTED RELIEF 22 “A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is 23 demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Here, Plaintiffs seek to recover 24 unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 25 (Mot. 6.) The relief Plaintiffs seek is consistent with that requested in the Complaint 26 and is thus permissible. (See Compl. ¶¶ 14–15, Prayer ¶¶ 1–5.) 27 Additionally, once liability is established through a defendant’s default, a plaintiff 28 must establish that the requested relief is appropriate. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. 1 Plaintiffs cannot rely solely on allegations to establish damages, for “even a defaulting 2 party is entitled to have its opponent produce some evidence to support an award of 3 damages.” LG Elecs., Inc. v. Advance Creative Comput. Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 4 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 5 In an ERISA action to recover delinquent contributions, a successful plaintiff is 6 entitled to the following forms of relief: 7 (A) the unpaid contributions, 8 (B) interest on the unpaid contributions, 9 (C) an amount equal to the greater of-- 10 (i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or 11 (ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such higher percentage as may be 12 permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount determined by 13 the court under subparagraph (A), 14 (D) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the 15 defendant, and (E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. 16 17 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) (emphases added). 18 Plaintiffs seek an award totaling $38,935.09, consisting of $8,115.70 in unpaid 19 contributions, $8,792.10 in interest, $8,792.10 in liquidated damages, and $13,235.19 20 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Mot. 6) 21 1. Unpaid Contributions 22 Under ERISA, upon judgment in favor of a plan, “the court shall award . . . the 23 unpaid contributions.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2); Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 24 104 F.3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996) (requiring mandatory award under § 1132(g)(2) once 25 plaintiff establishes the employer is delinquent, the plan provides for the award, and the 26 court enters judgment against the employer). As allegations regarding damages are not 27 accepted as true for purposes of a default judgment, a plaintiff must submit evidence 28 1 supporting the damages sought. Bd. of Trs. of the Boilermaker Vacation Tr. v. Skelly, 2 Inc., 389 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 3 Plaintiffs seek unpaid contributions and working assessments totaling $8,115.70. 4 (Mot. 6.) In his declaration, Chris Tashchyan, the Plans’ Director of Employer Services, 5 states that the Plans conducted an audit of Marshall Film’s records. (Tashchyan Decl. 6 ¶ 11.) Tashchyan also attaches a record of this audit, which confirms the $8,115.70 7 figure. (Id. Ex. 8 (“Audit”), ECF No. 15-10.) The Court finds this evidence adequate 8 to support the requested sums. See Dirs. of Mot. Picture Indus. Pension Plan v. Little 9 Hercules, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-02405-MWF (AGRx), 2013 WL 12305506, at *3 (finding 10 audit records sufficient to establish amount of unpaid contributions). 11 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid benefit 12 contributions in the total amount of $8,115.70. 13 2. Interest and Liquidated Damages 14 Plaintiffs also seek interest totaling $8,792.10 and liquidated damages totaling 15 $8,792.10. (Mot. 6.) 16 ERISA requires an award of prejudgment interest, “determined by using the rate 17 provided under the plan, or, if none, the rate prescribed under section 6621 of title 26.” 18 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E). The Agreements and Trust Agreements provide for interest 19 assessed at 1% per month on the delinquent contributions. (Tashchyan Decl. ¶ 10.F.) 20 Assessing these interest rates against the above noted delinquencies, Plaintiffs calculate 21 the prejudgment interest as $8,792.10. (Id. ¶ 12.) The Court finds Plaintiffs have 22 provided adequate support for these figures. (See id.) 23 ERISA also requires an award of liquidated damages for delinquent 24 contributions. The Court is required to award liquidated damages in “an amount equal 25 to the greater of (i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or (ii) liquidated damages 26 provided for under the plan in an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the [unpaid 27 contributions].” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C). The Trust Agreements also provide for 28 liquidated damages in an amount equal to the total amount of accrued interest. 1 (Tashchyan Decl. ¶ 13.) As the Court has found that Plaintiffs provide adequate support 2 for their interest figure, the Court also finds Plaintiffs have provided adequate support 3 for their liquidated damages figure. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $8,792.10 in interest and $8,792.10 5 in liquidated damages. 6 3. Audit Costs 7 Plaintiffs also seek costs of conducting the audit in the amount of $6,075.00. 8 (Mot. 6.) Under the Agreements and the Trust Agreements, Marshall Film is obligated 9 to pay the costs of an audit that discloses a delinquency, underpayment, or other 10 erroneous reporting. (Tashchyan Decl. ¶ 10.C.) The Ninth Circuit has held that audit 11 costs are recoverable under ERISA. Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 12 859 F.2d 1336, 1343 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that Plaintiffs provide adequate 13 support for their figure. (See Tashchyan Decl. ¶ 14; Audit.) Moreover, courts in this 14 District have found similar audit costs appropriate and reasonable. See, e.g., Little 15 Hercules, 2013 WL 12305506, at *4 (finding an award of $9,900.00 for audit costs 16 appropriate). 17 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $6,075.00 in audit costs. 18 4. Attorneys’ Fees & Costs 19 Plaintiffs also seek their reasonable attorneys’ fees of $5,995.00 and costs of 20 $1,165.19. (Mot. 6.) 21 Under ERISA, upon judgment in favor of a plan, “the court shall award . . . 22 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2); Operating 23 Eng’rs Pension Tr. v. Reed, 726 F.2d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1984). In this District, 24 attorneys’ fees awarded on default judgment are calculated according to the fee schedule 25 provided in Local Rule 55-3. C.D. Cal. L.R. 55-3. However, “[a]n attorney claiming a 26 fee in excess of this schedule may file a written request at the time of entry of the default 27 judgment,” as Plaintiffs have done here, and the Court “shall hear the request and render 28 judgment for such fee as the Court may deem reasonable.” Id. 1 To determine reasonable fees under ERISA § 502(g)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), 2 courts use a “hybrid lodestar / multiplier approach.” McElwaine v. US W., Inc., 176 F.3d 3 1167, 1173 (9th Cir. 1999). To calculate the lodestar amount, a court multiplies “the 4 number of hours an attorney reasonably expended on the prevailing party’s case” with 5 the attorney’s “reasonable hourly rate, based on evidence of the market rate for the 6 services provided.” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 97 F.4th 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2024). Once 7 the lodestar figure is determined, the court then decides whether to adjust the figure 8 based on a variety of factors.2 Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 9 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 430 n.3 (1983)). The 10 lodestar figure is presumptively reasonable, and it should therefore be adjusted only in 11 “rare” and “exceptional” cases. Edmo, 97 F.4th at 1168–69 (collecting cases). The fee 12 applicant bears the “burden of showing that the claimed rate and number of hours are 13 reasonable.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984). 14 Plaintiffs seek $5,995.00 in attorneys’ fees, which is the total of $4,774.00 already 15 incurred and $1,225.00 that Plaintiffs’ counsel expected to incur for the motion hearing. 16 (Halford Decl ¶¶ 12–13.) These fees are based on hourly rates of $350.00 for all 17 attorneys, and $140.00 for paralegals, with a total of 26.30 hours expended during the 18 lifetime of this litigation. (Halford Decl. Ex. 9 (“Fee and Cost Invoices”), ECF 19 No. 15-12.) 20 Although it is unfortunate that Plaintiffs do not support these fees with case law 21 or evidence supporting their reasonableness, the Court agrees, based on its own 22 2 These factors include: 23 (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, 24 (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, 25 (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or 26 the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case, (11) the 27 nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. 28 Edmo, 97 F.4th at 1168 (quoting Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)). 1 experience, that these rates are reasonable. The Court similarly finds the hours 2 expended well supported by contemporaneous billing records. (See id.); Hensley, 3 461 U.S. at 433 (noting that fee applicants should “submit evidence supporting the 4 hours worked and rates claimed”); Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 5 1210 (9th Cir. 1986) (requiring “detailed time records justifying the hours claimed”). 6 Plaintiffs do not request a multiplier, and the Court finds one is not warranted in this 7 case. Also, because the Court did not hold a hearing on this Motion, the Court subtracts 8 $1,225.00 from the requested total. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiffs $4,770.00 9 in attorneys’ fees. 10 Plaintiffs also seek $1,165.19 in litigation costs, including filing fees for the two 11 times Plaintiffs have filed this case and costs of service on Defendant. (Mot. 6; Halford 12 Decl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs submit the billing records reflecting the breakdown of these costs. 13 (Halford Decl. ¶ 12; Fee and Cost Invoices.) However, Plaintiffs offer no support for 14 the notion that they can recover costs from a prior case. As such, the Court deducts the 15 filing fees from the first case ($402.00) and costs from Plaintiffs’ attempted service 16 ($68.50) and awards Plaintiffs $694.69 in costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920, 1923; C.D. 17 Cal. L.R. 54-3. 18 5. Summary of Relief 19 In summary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $8,115.70 in 20 unpaid contributions, $8,792.10 in prejudgment interest, $8,792.10 in liquidated 21 damages, $6,075.00 in audit costs, $4,770.00 in attorneys’ fees, and $694.69 in costs. 22 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the total sum of $37,239.59. 23 V. CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry 25 of Default Judgment against Marshall Film. (ECF No. 21.) The Court AWARDS 26 27 28 1 || Plaintiffs the total sum of $37,239.59 in principal, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Court 2 | will issue judgment in accordance with this order. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 October 3, 2025 7 □ 8 ~~

10 OTIS D. T, 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28