Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, v. Arbor Concrete Corp.
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Judge Brown's R&R (Docket Entry 16) is ADOPTED in its entirety and Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment (Docket Entry 11) is GRANTED. The Court hereby confirms the arbitration award entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. (Compl., Docket Entry 1, Ex. A.) Defendant and its officers are hereby ORDERED to make available to Plaintiffs, or their authorized representatives, any and all books and records Plaintiffs deem necessary to conduct an audit. In addition, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows: (1) $12,950.89 plus interest from March 9, 2014 through the date of judgment at the rate of 0.75% per month and (2) $1,245.00 in attorneys' fees and costs. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/25/2015. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------X
TRUSTEES OF EMPIRE STATE CARPENTERS
ANNUITY, APPRENTICESHIP,
LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION,
PENSION AND WELFARE FUNDS,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-2893(JS)(GRB)
ARBOR CONCRETE CORP.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Charles R. Virginia, Esq.
Elina Burke, Esq.
Richard B. Epstein, Esq.
Virginia & Ambinder LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
For Defendant:
No appearances.
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for
default judgment (Docket Entry 11); and (2) Magistrate Judge Gary
R. Brown’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
this Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion (Docket Entry 16).
For the
following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety,
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity,
Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare
Funds (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action on May 7, 2014 against
defendant
Arbor
Concrete
Corp.
(“Defendant”),
to
confirm
and
enforce an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor
Management
Relations
502(e)(1)
of
the
Act
(“LMRA”),
Employee
29
U.S.C.
Retirement
§
Income
185,
Section
Security
Act
(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1), and the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9.
The arbitration award, issued on March 9,
2014, found that Defendant failed to pay certain fringe benefit
contributions
and
directed
Defendant
to
pay
Plaintiffs
“$12,950.89, consisting of contributions of $8,592.76, interest of
$389.58,
liquidated
damages
of
$1,718.55,
attorneys’
$1,500.00, and the arbitrator’s fee of $750.00.”
fees
of
(R&R at 5-6;
Compl. Ex. A.)
On
May
27,
2014,
Plaintiffs
filed
an
affidavit
of
service, affirming that the Summons and Complaint were served on
Defendant through the Secretary of State on May 9, 2014.
Entry 4.)
(Docket
Defendant did not answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint, and Plaintiffs requested a Certificate of Default on
July 2, 2014.
Defendant’s
(Docket Entry 7.)
default
that
The Clerk of the Court certified
same
day.
(Docket
Entry
August 11, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment.
Entry
11.)
On
August
12,
2014,
the
undersigned
8.)
On
(Docket
referred
Plaintiffs’ motion to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown for a report
and recommendation as to whether the pending motion should be
granted.
(Docket Entry 14.)
2
On
February
(Docket Entry 16.)
order:
(1)
27,
2015,
Judge
Brown
issued
his
R&R.
The R&R recommends that the Court enter an
confirming
the
arbitration
award;
(2)
awarding
Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $12,950.89 plus interest from
March 9, 2014, the date of the arbitration award, through the date
of judgment at the rate of 0.75% per month; (3) awarding Plaintiffs
$1,245.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (4) ordering Defendant
and
its
officers
authorized
to
make
available
representatives,
any
and
to
Plaintiffs,
all
books
or
and
their
records
Plaintiffs deem necessary to conduct an audit. (R&R at 6, 17-18.)
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,
or
modify,
recommendations
made
in
by
whole
the
or
in
part,
magistrate
the
judge.”
findings
28
and
U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.”
Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen days of service of
the R&R.
The time for filing objections has expired, and no party
has objected.
Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to
have been waived.
3
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Brown’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of
clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Judge Brown’s R&R (Docket Entry 16) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment (Docket
Entry 11) is GRANTED.
The Court hereby confirms the arbitration
award entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants.
(Compl., Docket Entry 1, Ex. A.) Defendant and its officers are
hereby ORDERED to make available to Plaintiffs, or their authorized
representatives, any and all books and records Plaintiffs deem
necessary to conduct an audit. In addition, the Clerk of the Court
is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendant as follows:
(1) $12,950.89 plus interest from March 9,
2014 through the date of judgment at the rate of 0.75% per month
and (2) $1,245.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Clerk of the
Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
March
25 , 2015
Central Islip, New York
4
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?