D2 Abatement, Inc. and Premier Environmental Solutions LLC, Alter Egos

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 2016

363 NLRB No. 153 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

363 NLRB No. 153
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
D2 Abatement, Inc. and Premier Environmental So-
lutions LLC, alter egos and District Council 1M,
International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades (IUPAT), AFL–CIO. Case 07–CA–
133250
March 22, 2016
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
The General Counsel seeks a partial default judgment
against Respondent D2 Abatement, Inc. (Respondent D2)
on the ground that it has failed to file an answer to the
complaint. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by
District Council 1M, International Union of Painters and
Allied Trades (IUPAT), AFL–CIO (the Union), the Gen-
eral Counsel issued a complaint on October 30, 2015,
against Respondent D2 and Respondent Premier Envi-
ronmental Solutions LLC (Respondent Premier) (collec-
tively, the Respondents), alleging that they are alter egos
and have violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act.
On November 13, 2015, Respondent Premier filed a
timely answer to the complaint denying these allegations.
Respondent D2 failed to file an answer.
On January 25, 2016, the General Counsel filed with
the National Labor Relations Board Motions to Transfer
Case to the Board and for Default Judgment against Re-
spondent D2. Thereafter, on January 28, 2016, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion for partial
default judgment should not be granted.1 No party filed a
response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Partial Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively stated
that unless an answer was received by November 13,
2015, the Board may find, pursuant to a motion for de-
fault judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are

1 The Order Transferring and Notice to Show Cause mistakenly
stated that cause be shown why the “motions” should not be granted.
As is clear from the context of the Order, the motion to transfer the
proceeding to the Board was granted.
true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the General
Counsel’s motion disclose that on January 8, 2016, the
Region sent by regular mail a letter advising the Re-
spondent D2 that unless an answer to the complaint was
received by January 15, 2016, a motion for default judg-
ment would be filed.
As stated above, Respondent D2 failed to file an an-
swer. Nevertheless, we deny the General Counsel’s Mo-
tion for Partial Default Judgment on the basis that Re-
spondent Premier’s timely filed answer precludes the
entry of default judgment against Respondent D2.
The Board has declined to enter default judgment
against a nonanswering respondent where its alleged
liability stemmed from its alleged status as an alter ego
of, or single employer with, another respondent that filed
a timely answer. See Metro Demolition Co., 348 NLRB
272, 272–273 fn. 6 (2006) (denying default judgment
against respondents that failed to file timely answers,
where their alleged liability was derivative and stemmed
from their alleged status as a single employer with, or an
alter ego of, an answering respondent), and cases cited
therein. The complaint here alleges that Respondent D2
and Respondent Premier are alter egos. Assuming that
the allegations in the complaint are true, the answer filed
by Respondent Premier suffices to preclude entry of de-
fault judgment against Respondent D2. In these circum-
stances, Respondent Premier’s timely filed answer deny-
ing the allegations precludes default judgment against
Respondent D2. We therefore deny the General Coun-
sel’s motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the General Counsel’s Motion for
Partial Default Judgment is denied and the proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 7 for fur-
ther appropriate action.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 22, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD