United States District Court, D. Nevada
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA; THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA, Plaintiffs,
REGINALD DUNLAP, an individual, Defendant.
P. Segal, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6120 Christopher M. Humes, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 12782 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT ECF NO. 7
Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge.
the Court is the Plaintiffs', the Board of Trustees of
the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust
for Southern Nevada (the “Trustees”) and the
Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust for
Southern Nevada (the “Plan”), Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Reginald Dunlap
(“Dunlap”). Default having been entered against
Defendant, the Court having reviewed the Plaintiffs'
Motion, received oral argument at the November 25, 2019,
Hearing, being fully advised, and good cause appearing, the
Court now makes the following findings of facts and
conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
Plaintiffs are the Board of Trustees of the Construction
Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada
and the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension
Trust for Southern Nevada.
Board of Trustees is made up of fiduciaries of the Plan for
purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
Plan is an employee benefit plan as defined in ERISA.
Defendant Reginald Dunlap is an individual who is a resident
of the State of Nevada.
Dunlap was a Participant in the Plan accruing pension
benefits to his account.
Dunlap applied for payment of pension benefits from the Plan
in December 2007.
Plan offers two types of default pension options: (1) a
Single Life Annuity for unmarried participants; and (2) 50%
Husband-and-Wife Pension for married participants.
Dunlap elected the Single Life Annuity option which requires
a spouse's consent when the participant is a married
his application, Dunlap executed a certification under the
penalty of perjury stating that he was not married at the
time he submitted his application for pension benefits.
Dunlap was not truthful on his application to the Plan, as he
was married to Tammie Davis at the time Dunlap submitted his
application for payment to the Plan.
When Dunlap applied for pension benefits 2007, he had been
married to Tammie Davis for approximately 9 years.
Dunlap did not register his wife under his health plan to
further conceal his marriage.
Dunlap also reported that he was single to the Internal
Revenue Service while he was actually married, ...