Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund, Additional Security Benefit Fund, Vacation & Holiday Fund, Trade Education Fund and 401(k) Savings Plan et al v. Arista Plumbing Heating and Piping Corp.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Scanlon. ( Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/5/2014 ) *Forwarded for jgm. (Guzzi, Roseann)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Trustees of the PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION
NO. 1 WELFARE FUND, ADDITIONAL
SECURITY BENEFIT FUND, V ACATION &
HOLIDAY FUND AND 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN,
Trustees of the PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS
NATIONAL PENSION FUND and Trustees
of the INTERNATIONAL TRAINING FUND,
C>,';- ', ..
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT " : ~',:::AND RECOMMENDATION
12-cv-5130 (SL T) (VMS)
-againstARIST A PLUMBING HEATINGS AND
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No.1 Welfare Fund, Additional Security Benefit
Fund, Vacation & Holiday Fund and 401(k) Savings Plan, Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Trustees of the International Training Fund (collectively "Plaintiffs")
bring the present action against Defendant Arista Plumbing Heating and Piping Corp. ("Arista")
under Sections 502 and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1145, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185, to enforce Arista's contractual and statutory obligations to submit
to an audit, and for related relief. Arista was duly served but never answered or otherwise responded
to this litigation. The Clerk of Court made an entry of default on the docket on February 19,2013.
(Docket No.7.) On May 9, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of default judgment and
attorney's fees, (Docket No.9), which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Scanlon for a Report
and Recommendation, ("R&R"), (Docket No. 16). Currently before the Court is Judge Scanlon's
R&R, dated February 10,2014, to which Arista has not submitted any objections.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions
pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation
as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of the
R&R, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See id. Upon de novo review
of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or
reject the R&R. See id. The Court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge as to those portions of the R&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas
v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to
appeal this Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y o/Health & Human Servs., 892
F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
In this case, on February 10,2014, Judge Scanlon recommended that this Court:
(1) Grant Plaintiffs' default judgment motion for an order directing Arista to produce
relevant books and records for an audit for the period spanning January 1, 2009
through August 31, 2012;
(2) Direct Arista to coordinate with Plaintiffs to produce the books and records at a
mutually agreeable location conducive to Plaintiffs' auditing the materials within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' audit of these materials shall
commence on this date and continue on such business days as are mutually
agreeable to the parties until said audit is complete; and
(3) Grant Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,000.
Objections to the R&R were due by February 24, 2014. No objections were filed with this Court.
Upon review of the recommendation, this Court adopts and affirms the R&R of Magistrate Judge
/SANDRA L. TowNES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Brooklyn, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?