Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California et al v. Capurro AG Solutions, LLC et al

1
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Matthew P. Minser, Esq. (SBN 296344)
Luz E. Mendoza, Esq. (SBN 303387)
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION
5100-B1 Clayton Road, Suite 373
Concord, CA 94521
Telephone: (510) 906-4710
Email: mminser@sjlawcorp.com
Email: lmendoza@sjlawcorp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Operating Engineers’ Health
and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OPERATING ENGINEERS’ HEALTH AND
WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAPURRO AG SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Suspended
California Limited Liability, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
ORDER AS MODIFIED FINDING
DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT AND
IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 14

2
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Operating Engineers’ Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern
California, et al.’s (“Plaintiffs” or “Trust Funds”) Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants
Capurro AG Solutions, LLC and Weston K. Capurro (hereinafter collectively, “Defendants”) Should
Not Be Held in Contempt and for Monetary Sanctions. Dkt. No. 44 (the “OSC Motion”).
On January 26, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion and ordered Defendants to
appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt and sanctioned for failure to comply
with the Court’s January 11, 2024, Judgment. Dkt. No. 51. As discussed below, Defendants did not
appear at the OSC hearing and have continued to disobey this Court’s orders.
Having considered the record, including Plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court’s prior orders, and
Defendants’ failure to comply, the Court hereby FINDS Defendants in civil contempt and ORDERS
sanctions as set forth below.
II. BACKGROUND
Judgment (Dkt. No. 40)
1. On January 11, 2024, this Court entered Judgment against Defendants Capurro AG
Solutions, LLC and Weston K. Capurro. Dkt. No. 40. The Judgment specifically required that
Defendants:
(1) submit to an audit of their payroll records for the period of April 1, 2020, through
August 31, 2023; and
(2) pay Plaintiffs $18,328.71 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Dkt. No. 40.
Notice of Judgment
2. Plaintiffs served Defendant Capurro AG Solutions LLC with the Judgment on March 14,
2024, via U.S. Mail at 164 Las Colinas Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076. This address is listed as the
Corporation’s principal place of business, mailing address, and address for Defendant Weston Capurro,
the Agent for Service of Process, on the California Secretary of State website. See Dkt. No. 45, ¶¶ 5–6,
& Exhibit A.
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 14

3
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Judgment. See Dkt. No. 45, ¶¶ 8–9.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt and Monetary Sanctions
for Failure and Refusal to Comply with Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 44–45)
4. On November 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding
Contempt and Monetary Sanctions as a result of Defendants’ Failure and Refusal to Comply with the
Judgment. See OSC Motion.
5. Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion requested that the Court Order the following:
a. That Defendants be held in civil contempt of this Court for failure to comply with the
Court’s January 11, 2024, Judgment;
b. That Defendants must permit Plaintiffs’ Auditors to conduct and complete an audit of
all books and records required under the Judgment, covering the period April 1, 2020,
through August 31, 2023;
c. That Defendants pay to Plaintiffs the total sum of $18,328.71 in attorneys’ fees and
costs as required by the Judgment.
d. As a further sanction for Defendants’ contempt and to compensate Plaintiffs for the
fees incurred in bringing this motion, that Defendants jointly and severally pay
Plaintiffs the additional amount of $3,416.00 incurred in attorneys’ fees to bring their
OSC Motion.
Service of Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 46)
6. That same day, Plaintiffs served Defendants with the Motion via U.S. Mail at 164 Las
Colinas Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076. This address is listed as the Corporation’s principal place of
business, mailing address, and address for the Agent for Service of Process on the California Secretary
of State website. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service on November 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 46; see also Dkt.
No. 45, Ex. B (listing the 164 Las Colinas Drive address as the most up-to-date address on California
Secretary of State website).
//
//
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 14

4
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Service of Court’s Notice Directing Plaintiffs to Re-Notice
the Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. Nos. 47–49)
7. On November 25, 2025, the Court issued a Notice directing Plaintiffs to appropriately re-
notice the Motion. Dkt. No. 47.
8. On November 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended Notice of Motion. Dkt. No. 48.
9. On November 26, 2025, Plaintiffs served the Court’s November 25, 2025, Notice and
Plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Motion on Defendants via U.S. mail at Defendants’ last known address:
164 Las Colinas Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service that same day. Dkt.
No. 49.
10. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs served Defendants by U.S. Mail at the Las Colinas Drive
address with the Court’s ECF notice regarding the scheduled Motion hearing. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of
Service on December 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 50.
Initial Communications with Defendant Weston Capurro (Dkt. No. 60)
11. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that on January 20, 2026, Defendant Weston Capurro
e-mailed Plaintiffs’ Counsel expressing a desire to settle the matter, thereby confirming receipt of
Plaintiffs’ Motion. See Dkt. No. 60 (“Mendoza Decl.”) at ¶ 12.
12. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that on January 23, 2026, Plaintiffs’ Counsel
responded to Defendant Weston Capurro’s e-mail, reminding him of the Court’s Judgment against
Defendants, which ordered that Defendants (1) comply with the Trust Funds’ audit request for the
period of April 1, 2020 through August 31, 2023, (2) and pay any amounts found due on the audit, and
(3) pay the Trust Funds $18,328.71 in attorneys’ fees and costs ($15,080.00 in attorneys’ fees and
$3,248.71 in costs). The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs’ Counsel provided Mr. Capurro
with the Trust Funds’ Auditors’ contact information to schedule the audit and provided him with the
address where payment for amounts owed to Plaintiffs should be sent. Id. at ¶ 13.
13. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that Mr. Capurro responded indicating he had retained
counsel who would reach out. Id. at ¶ 14.
14. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that despite Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s multiple follow-up
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 4 of 14

5
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requests for counsel’s contact information on January 26, January 27, and February 3, 2026, Mr.
Capurro did not respond for over a week. Id. at ¶ 15.
Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 51)
15. On January 26, 2026, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to
Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt and for Monetary Sanctions (the
“Order”). Dkt. No. 51.
Service of Court’s Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 52)
16. Service by Mail: On January 26, 2026, Plaintiffs served the Court’s Order by U.S. mail
on Defendants at the following addresses for the reasons stated below:
• 164 Las Colinas Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076 (“Las Colinas”);
o Address listed as the Corporation’s principal, mailing, and agent for service of
process’s address on the California Secretary of State;
• 2447 Tuckahoe Ter., Royal Oaks, CA 95076 (“Tuckahoe Ter.”);
o A LexisNexis Public Records search of Defendant Weston K. Capurro indicated that
his wife Regina E. Webb resides at this Tuckahoe Ter. address;
• 240 San Miguel Canyon Rd., Royal Oaks, CA 95076 (“San Miguel Canyon”)
o A LexisNexis Public Records search of Defendant Weston K. Capurro indicated that
Mr. Capurro currently resides at this address.
Dkt. No. 60 at ¶ 17.
Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service with the Court on January 26, 2026. Dkt. No. 52.
17. Attempts at Personal Service: Between January 27, 2026, and February 4, 2026, process
servers attempted personal service at all three locations:
• Las Colinas address:
o On January 27, 2026, the process server attempted to personally serve the Court’s
Order on Defendants at the Las Colinas address, but were informed by the occupant,
who stated he was Defendant Weston K. Capurro’s brother, that Defendant Weston
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 5 of 14

6
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K. Capurro did not reside there and that the property belonged to their mother.
• San Miguel Canyon address:
o On January 27 and January 30, 2026, the process server attempted personal service of
the Court’s Order but was unable to access the property.
• Tuckahoe Ter. address:
o On February 4, 2026, the process server served the Court’s Order on Defendants at
this address by leaving the document with Defendant Weston Capurro’s mother-in-
law, followed by a mailing on February 5, 2026.
See Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 18; see also Dkt. No. 52 (proof of service the Order was sent by U.S. mail to
Defendants at all three addresses listed above); Dkt. No. 55 (affidavits of due diligence and proofs of
service).
18. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Affidavits of Due Diligence regarding the
unsuccessful personal service attempts at the Las Colinas and San Miguel Canyon addresses as well as
Proofs of Service for Defendants at the Tuckahoe Ter. address. See Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 55.
19. Plaintiffs’ Proofs of Service and Affidavits of Due Diligence detail their exhaustive
efforts to personally serve Defendants. See Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 20; Dkt. No. 55.
Defendants’ Confirmed Address
20. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that on February 11, 2026, Mr. Capurro confirmed
with Plaintiffs’ Counsel via e-mail that the 240 San Miguel Canyon Road address is the only valid
address for service of process on Defendants. See Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 26.
Notice rescheduling the OSC Motion hearing
21. On February 13, 2026, the Court issued a Notice rescheduling the OSC Motion hearing.
Dkt. No. 53.
Service of Court’s Order rescheduling the OSC Motion hearing
22. On February 17, 2026, Plaintiffs served the Court’s February 13, 2026, Notice on
Defendants by U.S. mail at the San Miguel Canyon address which Mr. Capurro previously confirmed.
Plaintiffs also sent the same to Defendant Weston Capurro via email. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 6 of 14

7
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with the Court that same day. Dkt. No. 54.
Hearing on Plaintiffs OSC Motion
23. On February 19, 2026, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion.
24. Weston Capurro failed to appear at the February 19, 2026, hearing on the Court’s Order
to Show Cause. Mr. Capurro also failed to submit any written response, evidence, declaration, or other
explanation showing inability to comply with the Judgment.
25. As reflected in the Court’s Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 58), the Court directed Plaintiffs’
Counsel to e-file a declaration detailing the service process and any communications with the defendant
since Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion.
26. On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs served the Court’s February 19, 2026, Minute Entry on
Defendants by U.S. mail at the San Miguel Canyon address and also via e-mail to
westoncapurro@outlook.com. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service with the Court that same day. Dkt. No.
59; see also Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 36.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Declaration re Service of Process and Communication with Defendants
27. On February 26, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Mendoza Declaration. Dkt. No. 60.
28. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Declaration describes that Plaintiffs’ Counsel has kept Defendants
apprised of its obligations pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for OSC (Dkt. No.
51) and Plaintiffs have been diligent in their attempts to reach resolution.
29. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that on February 26, 2026, Plaintiffs Counsel’s office
sent an email to Mr. Capurro at westoncapurro@outlook.com attaching the Mendoza Declaration. Dkt.
No. 61 at ¶ 7. The Court is informed by Plaintiffs that Mr. Capurro failed to respond. Id.
Plaintiffs’ March 12, 2026, Status Report (Dkt. No. 61)
30. On March 12, 2026, pursuant to discussions at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion and
as directed in the Court’s subsequent Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 58), Plaintiffs filed a Status Report
regarding efforts made to resolve this matter with Defendants. Dkt. No. 61. Plaintiffs’ status report
indicates the following:
a. On March 2, 2026, after having confirmed that no payment had been received,
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 7 of 14

8
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Counsel emailed Mr. Capurro informing him that the payment he indicated
was sent towards the outstanding judgment had not been received. Plaintiffs’ Counsel
asked Mr. Capurro where the check was mailed and to provide a copy of the check by
end of day. Mr. Capurro failed to respond to this email.
b. On March 2, 2026, Plaintiffs’ Counsel confirmed with Plaintiffs’ Auditors that
Defendants provided limited documentation in response to the audit. Plaintiffs’
Auditors informed Plaintiffs’ Counsel that they provided Defendants with a March 6,
2026, deadline to submit the requested documents.
c. On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs sent a follow-up email to Mr. Capurro informing him
again that no payment was received.
d. On March 5, 2026, Mr. Capurro responded to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s March 4, 2026,
email stating: “I'll have image of check converted to a PDF and resend. Should have
final bank statements to auditor by tomorrow as well. Check was mailed to your office
I believe but will confirm.”
e. On March 6, 2026, Plaintiffs’ Counsel emailed Mr. Capurro confirming that no
payment or audit documentation had been received, requesting that Mr. Capurro
confirm where the check was mailed, that he provides a copy of the check, and that
he inform Plaintiffs when the remaining balance on the Judgment would be paid. Mr.
Capurro failed to respond.
f. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiffs’ Auditors informed Plaintiffs’ Counsel that Defendants
failed to respond or submit the outstanding documentation needed to complete the
audit.
g. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiffs’ Counsel emailed Mr. Capurro confirming no payment
had been received, that Plaintiffs would proceed to enforce the judgment without
further notice and request that the court sanction Defendants for their failure to comply
with the Judgment if no response was received, and requesting audit compliance with
the list of the outstanding documents.
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 8 of 14

9
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h. On March 11, 2026, the Trust Funds’ Administrator confirmed to Plaintiffs’ Counsel
that no payment had been received to date.
See Dkt. No. 61, ¶ 7.
31. On March 13, 2026, Plaintiffs served their March 12, 2026, Status Report on Defendants
by U.S. mail at the San Miguel Canyon address and also via e-mail to westoncapurro@outlook.com.
Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service with the Court that same day. Dkt. No. 62.
Clerk’s Notice Setting Case Management Conference re Dkt. No. 61
32. On April 20, 2026, the Court Clerk issued a Notice Setting a Case Management
Conference Regarding Plaintiffs’ Status Report. Dkt. No. 63.
33. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiffs Counsel e-mailed Defendants to provide Defendants with a
copy of the Court Clerk’s Notice (Dkt. No. 63) and to follow up regarding Defendants’ obligations.
Plaintiffs confirmed that no response was received. See Dkt. No. 65 at ¶ 23.
34. On April 21, 2026, Plaintiffs served the Clerk’s Notice Setting a Case Management
Conference on Defendants by U.S. mail at the San Miguel Canyon address. Plaintiffs filed a Proof of
Service with the Court that same day. See Dkt. No. 64.
Case Management Conference Statement
35. On April 28, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Case Management Conference Statement with the
Court along with their Proof of Service of the same on Defendants. See Dkt. No. 65. Plaintiffs’
Statement indicated the following:
a. On April 20, 2026, the Trust Funds’ Auditor confirmed that Defendants have
continued to fail to comply with the audit.
b. On April 21, 2026, the Trust Funds’ Administrator confirmed that no payment has
been received to date.
c. Plaintiffs requested that the Court issue an Order holding Defendants in contempt and
sanctioning Defendants for their failure to comply with the Court’s default judgment
order, as discussed in this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to
Show Cause; Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. No. 51.)
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 9 of 14

10
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See Dkt. No. 65 at ¶¶ 24–25, 27.
May 5, 2026, Case Management Conference
36. On May 5, 2026, the Court held a Case Management Conference. Plaintiffs’ Counsel
appeared at the Case Management Conference. Again, Defendant Weston Capurro failed to appear at
the Case Management Conference and did not submit any written response, evidence, declaration, or
other explanation showing inability to comply with the Judgment or the Court’s prior Order.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“Civil contempt [] consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by
failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v.
McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). “The standard for finding a party
in civil contempt is well settled: The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing
evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court.” In re Bennett, 298
F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Once the moving party does
so, the “burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Id.
(quotation omitted)
Plaintiffs may “recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing and prosecuting . . .
contempt proceedings.” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Sheperd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935,
958 (9th Cir. 2014). The “cost of bringing the violation to the attention of the court is part of the
damages suffered by the prevailing party and those costs would reduce any benefits gained by the
prevailing party from the court’s violated order.” Id. (citing Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 705
(9th Cir. 1985)) (quotation omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Court has authority to impose sanctions against Defendants for failure to
comply with the judgment.
A federal district court has the authority to impose monetary sanctions against a defendant who
disobeys a court order. As the Ninth Circuit has explained:
Civil contempt occurs when a party fails to comply with a court
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 10 of 14

11
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
order. Failure to comply need not be
intentional.
General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
“Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to compensate
the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous behavior, or both.”
Id. at 1380. The Ninth Circuit has further explained:
The power of courts to punish for contempts is a necessary and
integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely
essential to the performance of duties imposed on them by law.
See Inst. Of Cetacean Research, 774 F.3d at 957–58.
Sanctions for contempt may also include the award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
bringing such a motion for contempt. Id. at 958–59; see also Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 455–56
(9th Cir. 2020) (confirming district court’s inherent authority to issue civil contempt orders and
sanctions for violations of a court order, provided they are “coercive” or “compensatory” instead of
“punitive”).
Further, a court may hold an officer of a defendant corporation in contempt of court for the
corporation’s failure to comply with a court order because an officer of the corporation is the one
responsible for the corporation’s affairs, and thus is subject to the court’s order just as the corporation
itself is. Cf. Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., 2023 WL 360242, at *10–11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023)
(finding non-party corporate officers in civil contempt for company conduct).
B. Defendants failed to comply with the Judgment and have disobeyed the Court’s
orders.
Pursuant to this Court’s January 11, 2024, Judgment, Defendants were ordered to submit to an
audit of their books and records, including all outstanding contribution reports, covering the period of
April 1, 2020, through August 31, 2023. Dkt. No. 40. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s January 11,
2024, Judgment, Defendants were ordered to pay Plaintiffs the sum of attorneys’ fees and costs in the
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 11 of 14

12
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
total amount of $18,328.71 ($15,080.00 for attorneys’ fees and $3,248.71 in costs). See. Dkt. No. 40.
As explained above, Defendants have failed to respond, comply with the audit, submit their
outstanding contribution reports, and pay the attorneys’ fees and costs as ordered by the Court. See Dkt.
No. 45 and Exhibit A attached thereto.
In addition, since the Court’s January 26, 2026, Order Granting Plaintiffs OSC Motion (Dkt.
No. 51) and February 19, 2026, hearing, Defendants:
• Failed to attend any of the scheduled and noticed hearings;
• Failed to provide the required audit documents despite deadlines;
• Failed to make promised payments to Plaintiffs;
• Failed to provide proof of any payment; and
• Ceased responding to Plaintiffs’ communications.
Defendants’ repeated failure to comply, despite notice, opportunity, and Defendants’
representations of forthcoming compliance, constitutes disobedience of the Court’s orders.
C. Plaintiffs are awarded their requested attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiffs’ OSC Motion requests an award of their attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing their
OSC Motion. Dkt. No. 44 at 4. ERISA § 502(g)(2) requires the Court to award Plaintiffs “reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs of the action” when Plaintiffs obtain a judgment in their favor or otherwise
obtain the relief sought. Nw. Adm’rs., Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 258 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing
29 U.S.C § 1132(g)(2)) (noting provision is “mandatory, not discretionary”). Similarly, the Bargaining
and Trust Agreements provide that Defendants must pay all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in relation to the collection of delinquent contributions.
Here, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgement was granted in part, see Dkt. No. 39, requiring
that Defendants comply with the audit and pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs in the total amount
of $18,328.71, see Dkt. No. 40.
Given Defendants’ failure to comply with the Judgment, Plaintiffs filed their OSC Motion
seeking a total of $3,416.00 in attorneys’ fees for the time involved in drafting their OSC Motion
representing the time from March 22, 2024, through May 31, 2024. See Dkt. No. 45 at ¶¶ 13–17, &
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 12 of 14

13
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit C.
Based on the record to date, including Defendants’ disobedience of all Court orders, Defendants
are sanctioned in the amount of $3,416.00 for the additional attorneys’ fees and costs Plaintiffs incurred
as a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with this Court’s January 11, 2024, Judgment.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 13 of 14

14
ORDER AS MODIFIED
Case No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V. CONCLUSION / ORDER
The Court ORDERS:
1. Pursuant to this Court’s January 26, 2026, Order, Defendants are found to be in civil
contempt of this Court for failure to comply with the Court’s January 11, 2024, Judgment.
2. Defendants shall within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order:
a. Permit Plaintiffs’ Auditors to conduct and complete an audit of all books and records
required under the Judgment, covering the period April 1, 2020, through August 31,
2023;
b. Pay to Plaintiffs the total sum of $18,328.71 in attorneys’ fees and costs as required
by the Judgment. Payment shall be made payable to “Operating Engineers Trust
Funds” and shall be sent to Plaintiffs’ Counsel of Record at the above-captioned
address.
3. As a further sanction for Defendants’ contempt and to compensate Plaintiffs for the fees
incurred in bringing this motion, Defendants shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order,
jointly and severally pay Plaintiffs the additional amount of $3,416.00 in attorneys’ fees. Payment shall
be made payable to “Operating Engineers Trust Funds” and shall be sent to Plaintiffs’ Counsel of
Record at the above-captioned address.
4. Failure by Defendants to fully comply with this Order may result in additional relief as
the Court deems appropriate.
5. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Order upon both Defendants by means reasonably
calculated to provide actual notice and shall file proof of service with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
8/17/2026
Case 4:22-cv-03004-HSG Document 72 Filed 08/17/26 Page 14 of 14