Trustees of the Local 7 Tile Industry Welfare Fund et al v. Star Construction Marble & Granite, Inc. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: As no error appears on the face of Magistrate Judge Golds R&R, the Court adopts it without de novo review. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment against Defendants, Star Construction Marble & Granite, Inc. and Star Marble & Granite, Inc., on January 13, 2014, in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $29,012.39. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 1/13/2014. (Innelli, Michael)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x Trustees of the LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY WELFARE FUND, Trustees of the LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY ANNUITY FUND, Trustees of the TILE LAYERS LOCAL UNION 52 PENSION FUND, and Trustees of the INTERNATIONAL MASONRY INSTITUTE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER No. 13-CV-925 (FB) (SMG) Plaintiffs, -againstSTAR CONSTRUCTION MARBLE & GRANITE, INC. and STAR MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: MICHAEL BAUMAN, ESQ. Virginia & Ambinder 111 Broadway New York, NY 10006 For the Defendants: BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On June 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be granted and that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the total amount of $29, 686.61, as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) $20,611.51 in delinquent contributions; $4,122.30 in statutory liquidated damages; $1,786 in attorney’s fees and costs; and $3,166.80 in audit costs. In addition, he recommended that the interest on the delinquent contributions at the time final judgment is entered be calculated as follows: (i) (ii) on the $17,528.18 Local 7 Benefits Funds delinquency, a rate of $4.80 per day beginning April 1, 2010; on the $3,083.33 International Benefit Fund delinquency, a rate of $1.27 per day beginning April 1, 2010. The R&R states that “[a]ny objections to the recommendations made in this Report must be submitted within fourteen days after filing of the Report and, in any event, no later than July 8, 2013.” R&R at 8. To date, no objections have been filed. Where, as here, clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R & R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). As no error appears on the face of Magistrate Judge Gold’s R&R, the Court adopts it without de novo review. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment against Defendants, Star Construction Marble & Granite, Inc. and Star Marble & Granite, 2 Inc., on January 13, 2014, in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $29,012.39.1 SO ORDERED. /S/ Frederic Block FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York January 13, 2014 1 In arriving at that figure, the Court calculated $6,643.20 in interest on the principal of $17,528.18, by multiplying $4.80 per day times the number of days spanning from April 1, 2010 to January 13, 2014. The $1,757.68 in interest, on the principal amount of $3,083.33, was calculated by multiplying $1.27 per day times the number of days spanning that same period. 3

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?