Montefiore Medical Center v. Local 272 Welfare Fund et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 28 Report and Recommendations. The Court has reviewed the Report and found no clear error. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second cause of action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As Judge Netb um warned, the parties' failure to file timely objections to the Report has waived those objections for the purposes of appeal. See United States v. Male Juvenile, 121F.3d34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the open entry at docket number 11. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 12/4/2015) (kl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 12/4/2015

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

No. 14-CV-10229 (RA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff brought this action against Local 272 Welfare Fund under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA") alleging that the Fund failed to pay Montefiore's
urgent care claims in full. Plaintiff, as the assignee of the Fund's insurance beneficiaries, seeks
monetary damages under ERISA § 502(a)(l)(B) and an injunction under§ 502(a)(3). On May 14,
2015, Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(l) to dismiss Plaintiffs second
cause of action for equitable relief on the grounds that Montefiore lacks standing to seek equitable
relief, or, in the alterative, that equitable relief is not available because monetary damages would
fully compensate Montefiore.
Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Netbum's October 19, 2015 Report and
Recommendation. The Report recommends that the second cause of action be dismissed because
the Fund beneficiaries did not assign Montefiore their rights to seek equitable relief, and, as a
result, Montefiore lacks standing to seek an injunction.
The Court hereby adopts Judge Netbum's thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no
objection was filed. "Where no timely objection has been made ... a district court need only find
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the Report and

Recommendation." Pineda v. Masonry Const., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 2d 666, 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has reviewed the Report and found no clear error.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's second cause of action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As Judge
Netbum warned, the parties' failure to file timely objections to the Report has waived those
objections for the purposes of appeal. See United States v. Male Juvenile, 121F.3d34, 38 (2d Cir.
1997).
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the open entry at docket number 11.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 4, 2015
New York, New York

---------~

R nie Abrams
United States District Judge