United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. Hazel United States District Judge
before the Court is National Electrical Benefit Fund's
("NEBF") and National Electrical Annuity Plan's
("NEAP") (collectively. "Plaintiffs").
Motion to Amend Judgment. ECF No. 13. A hearing is
unnecessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following
reasons. Plaintiffs' Motion is granted.
Memorandum Opinion regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for
Default Judgment, this Court found Defendant Coastal Electric
& Environmental Services. Inc. liable for its failure lo
submit contributions to NEBF and NEAP that it was
"legally and contractually obligated to make."
Nat'l Elec. Benefit Fund v. Coastal Elec. &
Envtl. Servs., Inc. No. GJH-15-1698. 2016 WL 3221523. at
*3 (D. Md. June 7. 2016).
NEBF was therefore awarded, in relevant part. "S5.629.74
in delinquent contributions; interest in the amount of $1,
564.70: attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
S2.803.57: audit fees in the amount of $292.41: and, any
additional fees and costs incurred by NEBF in connection with
the enforcement of a judgment: interest on all amounts
awarded: and post-judgment interest until paid."
Id. at 4. Similarly. Plaintiff NEAP was awarded, in
relevant part. "S28.960.28 in delinquent contributions;
interest in the amount of $7, 670.32; attorney's fees and
costs in the amount of $2, 803.57: and. any additional fees
and costs incurred by [NEAP] in connection with the
enforcement of a judgment: interest on all amounts awarded;
and. post-judgment interest until paid." Id.
Now. in their Motion to Amend Judgment. Plaintiffs request
additional awards of liquidated damages in the amount of $1,
125.95 for NEBF and $5, 792.06 for NEAP. ECF No. 13 ¶ 8.
59(e) allows a party to tile a motion to alter or amend a
judgment no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment. The Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds on
which a court may alter or amend an earlier judgment:
"(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial;
or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." United Slates ex rel. Becker v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co.. 305 F.3d 284. 290 (4th
Cir. 2002) (citing Pac. Ins, C&. v. Am.
Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396. 403 (4th
Cir. 1998)). Plaintiffs claim here that the Court previously
made an error of law. Plaintiffs are correct.
action to enforce the payment of delinquent contributions
under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). a successful Plaintiff
shall be awarded:
(A) the unpaid contributions.
(B) interest on the unpaid contributions.
(C) an amount equal to the greater of-
(i) interest on the unpaid contributions, or
(ii) liquidated damages provided for under the plan in an
amount not in excess of 20 percent (or such higher percentage
as may be permitted under Federal or State law) of the amount
determined by the court under subparagraph (A).
(D) reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action,
to be paid by the defendant, and
(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems
29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Generally speaking, the first
two categories of relief are similar to damages awarded in a
breach of contract case, which seek to put the injured parts
in "as good a position as he would have been in had the
contract been performed." by awarding the Plaintiff
unpaid contributions and any interest that would have accrued
on them. Restatement (Second) of Contracts $ 344 cmt. a (Am.
Law Inst. 1981). The third category seeks to deter the
Defendant from making delinquent contributions in the future
by ordering an additional award of either the
interest on the unpaid contributions or liquidated damages
not in excess of 20 percent, whichever amount is greater. See
Vernon v. Bowen Enterprises. Inc.,648 F.Supp. 721.
724-25 (W.D. Pa. 1986)(noting both the deterrent purpose of
the provision and that the elements are "phrased in the
disjunctive."). In its prior opinion, the Court
conflated the categories of relief, ...