Rochester Laborers' Welfare-S.U.B. Fund et al v. Flower City Monitors, Inc. et al
Filing
30
ORDER denying 26 Motion to Strike. The parties are strongly encouraged to consent to a magistrate judge exercising the Courts full jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) over all issues remaining in this case. The parties are directe d to return the completed consent forms to the Clerk of Court by Monday, July 23, 2018. If the parties do not avail themselves of this opportunity to expedite resolution of the damages question, the Court will issue a separate order referring this matter to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to hear and report on damages. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 7/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms) (LB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROCHESTER LABORERS’ WELFARE-S.U.B.
FUND, by Robert Brown, as Chairman,
and Daniel Hogan, as Secretary;
ROCHESTER LABORERS’ PENSION FUND,
by Robert Brown, as Chairman, and
Daniel Hogan as Secretary;
ROCHESTER LABORERS ANNUITY FUND, by
Robert Brown, as Chairman and
Daniel Hogan, as Secretary;
ROCHESTER LABORERS’ APPRENTICE AND
TRAINING FUND, by Robert Brown, as
Chairman, and Daniel Hogan, as
Secretary; LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL UNION
NO. 435, by Daniel Kuntz, as
Business Manager,
DECISION AND ORDER
No. 6:15-cv-06446(MAT)
Plaintiffs,
-vsFLOWER CITY MONITORS, INC. and
LENORA L. PAIGE, Individually
and as an Officer of FLOWER CITY
MONITORS, INC.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This an action arising under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 29 U.5.C. §§ 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”), and the
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§ 185(a) (“LMRA”). The plaintiffs are the Rochester Laborers’
Welfare-S.U.B. Fund, the Rochester Laborers’ Pension Fund, the
Rochester Laborers’ Apprentice and Training Fund, the Rochester
Laborers’ Annuity Fund; and their trustees, Robert Brown; Daniel
Hogan; along with Laborers’ International of North America Local
Union
435
and
“Plaintiffs”).
its
The
trustee,
defendants
Daniel
are
Flower
Kuntz
City
(collectively,
Monitors,
Inc.
(“Flower City”), a New York corporation with its principal place of
business in Rochester, and its president, Lenora Paige (“Paige”)
(collectively, “Defendants”).
PROCEDURAL STATUS
On October 13, 2015, a Clerk’s Notice of Default was entered
against Defendants for failure to plead or otherwise defend. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise
defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the
clerk must enter the party’s default.”).
On June 5, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate the
Notice of Default, which this Court denied in a Decision and Order
filed on July 18, 2017.
Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”) 54 and 55(b)(2)
and a Motion to Amend the Complaint. The Court issued a Decision
and Order finding that Plaintiffs were entitled to default judgment
against Defendants but held that Defendants were entitled to
contest the amount of damages Plaintiffs requested. The Court
declined to order an evidentiary hearing on damages, as requested
by Defendants, but allowed Defendants to submit evidence and
argument in opposition to Plaintiffs’ damages calculations. The
Court also denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for leave
to amend the complaint to conform to the proof.
-2-
Defendants submitted a memorandum of law and affidavit (Docket
No. 24) in opposition to Plaintiffs’ calculation of damages.
Plaintiffs filed reply papers (Docket No. 25). Defendants then
filed a letter motion (Docket No. 26) to strike Plaintiffs’ reply
papers, to which Plaintiffs filed an affidavit in opposition
(Docket No. 27). Defendants filed a reply (Docket No. 28).
For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion to strike
is denied, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to conform to
the proof is, and the matter is referred to a magistrate judge for
an inquest on damages.
DISCUSSION
I.
The Motion to Strike
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ papers submitted following
the
Court’s
grant
of
default
judgment
in
their
favor
are
unauthorized. Plaintiffs’ argue that Defendants’ motion to strike
is procedurally improper insofar as it does not comply with this
District’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure and, moreover, is without
merit.
The Court agrees that Defendants’ motion fails to comply with
Rule 7(a) of the Western District of New York’s Local Rules of
Civil Procedure (“W.D.N.Y. L.R.”). In particular, under W.D.N.Y.
L.R. 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)(A) require that a movant submit papers in
support of his motion, provide a return date for the motion, and
file and serve a memorandum of law on the non-movant. Defendants
fulfilled none of these requirements. These deficiencies alone
provide a basis denial of the motion.
-3-
Furthermore, as Plaintiffs argue, their reply papers were
authorized by the Court in its July 26, 2017 decision and order,
inasmuch as Plaintiff therein addressed various issues raised by
Defendants’ in their opposition papers to the motion for default
judgment, namely, (1) the basis of Plaintiffs’ damages as set forth
in
the
complaint’s
first
cause
of
action;
(2)
Defendants’
characterization of the basis of Plaintiffs’ May 8, 2014 payroll
audit; (3) Defendants’ characterization of the Court’s decision and
order entered July 26, 2017; (4) the timesheets submitted by
Defendants’ in opposition to the motion for default judgment;
(5) Defendants’ certified payroll records outlining the hours
worked by their employees at the Genesee Valley Ice Rink Project,
the
subject
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
(“CBA”);
(6) Defendants’ argument that the CBA does not cover supervisors
and forepersons; and (7) Defendants’ argument that they are not
required to pay dues-deductions.
In any event, Defendants will have an additional opportunity
to contest Plaintiffs’ arguments and evidence submitted in support
of their reply papers, since, as discussed further below, the Court
is referring this matter to a magistrate judge to conduct a hearing
on the question of damages.
II.
The Damages Question
“While a party’s default is deemed to constitute a concession
of all well pleaded allegations of liability, it is not considered
an admission of damages.” Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L.
Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). “Upon entry of a
-4-
default,
a
plaintiff’s
claims
for
damages
generally
must
be
established in an evidentiary proceeding at which the defendant is
afforded the opportunity to contest the amount claimed.” Cement &
Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity
Fund,
Educ.
&
Training
Fund
&
Other
Funds
v.
Metro
Found.
Contractors Inc., 699 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted). There must be a sufficient evidentiary basis established
for the amount of damages the plaintiff seeks. Id. (citation
omitted). The district court’s determination on the sufficiency of
the damages evidence “may either based upon evidence presented at
a hearing or upon a review of detailed affidavits and documentary
evidence.”
Id.
(citing
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
55(b)(2);
Fustok
v.
ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)).
Together, “Rule 55(b)(2) and relevant case law give district judges
much discretion in determining when it is ‘necessary and proper’ to
hold an inquest on damages.” Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc.,
13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1993).
Although initially the Court believed that the damages issue
could be determined on submissions, the Court now concludes that a
hearing is necessary to resolve the contested issues surrounding
the amount of damages owed, including the proper calculation of
interest and award attorney’s fees.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ letter motion to strike
(Docket No. 26) is denied with prejudice.
-5-
The parties are strongly encouraged to consent to a magistrate
judge
exercising
the
Court’s
full
jurisdiction
pursuant
to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) over all issues remaining in this case.
Consent forms will be sent to the parties along with copies of this
Decision
and
Order.
The
parties
are
directed
to
return
the
completed consent forms to the Clerk of Court by Monday, July 23,
2018.
If the parties do not avail themselves of this opportunity to
expedite resolution of the damages question, the Court will issue
a separate order referring this matter to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to hear and report on damages.
SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:
July 16, 2018
Rochester, New York.
-6-
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?