Trustees of the Empire State Carpenters Welfare, Pension Annuity, Apprenticeship, Charitable Trust, Labor Management Cooperation, and Scholarship Funds v. Reidman Construction Corp.
ORDER - ORDERED that Judge Lindsays Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and it is further ORDERED that a default judgment is to be entered against the Defendant, and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for an award of damages against Reidman is denied without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/11/2012. (Coleman, Laurie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TRUSTEES OF THE EMPIRE STATE CARPENTERS
WELFARE, PENSION, ANNUITY, APPRENTICESHIP,
CHARITABLE TRUST, LABOR MANAGEMENT
COOPERATION, and SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS,
-againstREIDMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Levy Ratner, P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
80 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011-5126
By: Owen M. Rumelt, Esq., of Counsel
Reidman Construction Corp.
SPATT, District Judge.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about September 16, 2011, asserting claims for
damages pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1948 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. On January 4, 2012, the Clerk of the Court noted the default
of the Defendant Reidman Construction Corp. On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiffs moved for a
default judgment. On February 11, 2012, the Court referred the matter to United States
Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a recommendation as to whether the motion for a default
judgment should be granted, and if so, to determine what relief was appropriate, including
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
On August 13, 2012, Judge Lindsay issued a Report recommending that the Court enter
default judgment against the Defendant. However, Judge Lindsay also found that the
documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs was insufficient to provide the basis for an
award of damages. In particular, she noted that the Plaintiffs had not provided the Court with a
copy of the relevant portions of the Agreements, making it impossible for the Court to ensure
that there is a reasonable basis for the damages sought by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Judge
Lindsay recommended that the Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of damages against Reidman be
denied without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon submission of a signed collective bargaining
agreement between the parties for the relevant period and proper affidavits and/or declarations
referencing the pertinent provisions of the Agreements which support an award of damages in
this case. To date, no objection has been filed to Judge Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely
objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record.” Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
(citing Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court has reviewed
Judge Lindsay’s Report and finds it be persuasive and without any legal or factual errors. There
being no objection to Judge Lindsay’s Report, the Court adopts the Report.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Judge Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety,
and it is further
ORDERED that a default judgment is to be entered against the Defendant, and it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of damages against Reidman is
denied without prejudice.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 11, 2012
___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt________
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge
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?