Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local, 272 et al

Filing 163

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for (157 in 1:09-cv-03096-RA-SN) Motion to Approve filed by Montefiore Medical Center, (125 in 1:14-cv-10229-RA-SN, 162 in 1:09-cv-03096-RA-SN) Report and Recommendations,, (120 in 1:14-cv-10229-RA-SN) Motion to Approve filed by Montefiore Medical Center. As no objections to the Report were filed, the Court has reviewed Judge Netburn's Reportfor clear error. The Court finds no error and thus adopts the well- reasoned Report in its entirety . Accordingly, Montefiore shall be awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $309,069.65. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. 157 in case No. 09-cv-3096 and at Dkt. 120 in case No. 14-cv-10229, enter judgment, and close these two cases. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 9/14/2020) (rj) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 9/14/2020

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 272 WELFARE FUND, et al.,

No. 09-CV-3096 (RA) (SN)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 272 WELFARE FUND, et al.,

No. 14-CV-10229 (RA) (SN)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center brought two actions, one in 2009 (the “First Action”)
and another in 2014 (the “Second Action”), against Defendants Local 272 Welfare Fund (the
“Fund”) and its manager, Marc Goodman, seeking payment for medical services that Montefiore
provided to Fund beneficiaries. 1 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts, these
cases’ lengthy procedural history, and the prior decisions reached in these actions. On February
12, 2019, the Court awarded Montefiore prejudgment interest at the federal prime rate with respect
to a subset of its claims––its “post-MagnaCare ERISA claims from the First and Second Actions”
Plaintiff subsequently filed a third action against Defendants, see No. 17-cv-10213 (RA) (SN), which raises legal
claims distinct from the prior two actions.
1

––and directed it to “submit its proposed calculations of the proper amount of this interest” to
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, to whom this matter has been referred, for approval. See No. 09cv-3096, Dkt. 141, at 3; No. 14-cv-10229, Dkt. 104, at 3. On August 25, 2020, Judge Netburn
issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the Court award
Montefiore simple prejudgment interest in the amount of $309,069.65. See No. 09-cv-3096, Dkt.
162; No. 14-cv-10229, Dkt. 125. Neither party filed objections to the Report.
A district 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). Parties may object to a
magistrate judge’s recommended findings “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “When the parties make no objections to the
Report, the Court may adopt the Report if ‘there is no clear error on the face of the record.’” Smith
v. Corizon Health Servs., No. 14 Civ. 8839 (GBD) (SN), 2015 WL 6123563, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
16, 2015) (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).
“Furthermore, if as here . . . the magistrate judge’s report states that failure to object will preclude
appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then the failure to object
generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review.” Hamilton v. Mount Sinai Hosp.,
331 F. App’x 874, 875 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
As no objections to the Report were filed, the Court has reviewed Judge Netburn’s Report
for clear error. The Court finds no error and thus adopts the well-reasoned Report in its entirety.
Accordingly, Montefiore shall be awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $309,069.65.

2

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. 157 in
case No. 09-cv-3096 and at Dkt. 120 in case No. 14-cv-10229, enter judgment, and close these
two cases.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2020
New York, New York
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

3