Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund et al v. Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc.

Filing 78

CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 77 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 70 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of The New York City and Vicinity Carpenters Labor-Management Corporation, Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenter s Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund, Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund against Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc. in the amo unt of $ 65,160.64. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 30, 2020, and the Order dated March 30, 2021, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary jud gment and DENIES Defendant's cross motion. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs $22,477.77. Defendant is also ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Court will refer the calculation of reasonable fe es to Magistrate Judge Wang by separate order. The Court also notes that much of Defendant's briefing consists not of legal argument, but of excerpts of emails between Defendant's counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel. The emails, all attach ed as exhibits, consist of unprofessional attacks against opposing counsel, and Defendant's counsel repeats those attacks in its brief. None of this is relevant to the legal issues presented in this case. In addition, as the Court has noted, Def endant's response to Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement facially did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Districts Local Rules. Nor did Defendant even submit a Rule 56.1 Statement supporting its cross-motion for summar y judgment. The Court admonishes Defendant's counsel for this behavior and advises counsel against such actions in future litigation. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang's January 28, 2021 Report & Recommendation recommending that the Court grant (1) Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $42,682.87 and (2) Plaintiff's request for post-judgment interest. Dkt. No. 76 ("R & R"). As of March 30, 2021, no objection to t he R & R have been filed, and the deadline for objections have passed. Thus, the Court reviews the R & R for clear error, and it finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R & R in its entirety and GRANTS (1) Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys 9; fees and costs in the amount of $42,682.87 and (2) Plaintiff's request for post-judgment interest, with interest to accrue at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 3/31/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
Trustees of the New York City District Council
of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund,
Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman
Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

18 CIVIL 4111 (AJN)

JUDGMENT

Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 30, 2020, and the Order dated March 30,
2021, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendant’s
cross motion. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs $22,477.77. Defendant is also
ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The Court will refer the
calculation of reasonable fees to Magistrate Judge Wang by separate order. The Court also notes
that much of Defendant’s briefing consists not of legal argument, but of excerpts of emails
between Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel. The emails, all attached as exhibits, consist
of unprofessional attacks against opposing counsel, and Defendant’s counsel repeats those
attacks in its brief. None of this is relevant to the legal issues presented in this case. In addition,
as the Court has noted, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 Statement facially did not
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this District’s Local Rules. Nor did
Defendant even submit a Rule 56.1 Statement supporting its cross-motion for summary
judgment. The Court admonishes Defendant’s counsel for this behavior and advises counsel
against such actions in future litigation.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s January 28, 2021 Report & Recommendation
recommending that the Court grant (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount
of $42,682.87 and (2) Plaintiff’s request for post-judgment interest. Dkt. No. 76 (“R & R”). As of

March 30, 2021, no objection to the R & R have been filed, and the deadline for objections have
passed. Thus, the Court reviews the R & R for clear error, and it finds none. The Court therefore
adopts the R & R in its entirety and GRANTS (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in
the amount of $42,682.87 and (2) Plaintiff’s request for post-judgment interest, with interest to
accrue at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.; accordingly, the case is closed.

Dated: New York, New York
March 30, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK
_________________________
Clerk of Court
BY:
_________________________
Deputy Clerk