Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barbera v. Dasgowd

February 13, 2006

GARY LA BARBERA, LAWRENCE KUDLA, THOMAS GESUALDI, PAUL GATTUS, THEODORE KING, CHESTER BROMAN, FRANK FINKEL AND JOSEPH FERRARA AS TRUSTEES AND FIDUCIARIES OF THE LOCAL 282 WELFARE, PENSION, ANNUITY, JOB TRAINING, AND VACATION AND SICK LEAVE TRUST FUNDS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DASGOWD, INC., IRONDEQUOIT CORP., NORELLI & OLIVER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., SATISFIED TRUCKING, AND VIDAGO CONSTRUCTION CORP., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sifton, Senior Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds (the "Funds") brought this action against Dasgowd Inc., Irondequoit Corp., Norelli & Oliver Construction Co., Inc., Vidago Construction Corp., and Satisfied Trucking to recover payments for unpaid pension contributions pursuant to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et. seq.*fn1 Plaintiffs sought to enforce the terms of a Trust Agreement entered into between plaintiffs and each defendant pursuant to §502(A)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(3) and Sections 209(a) and 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§1059(a) and 1145, and collect payments alleged to be owed to the Funds under the terms of various collective bargaining agreements between defendants and the Teamsters Local 282 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

After defendants Irondequoit, Norelli and Vidago failed to appear or otherwise defend in this action, the Clerk of the Court noted their default. Default was entered against Satisfied on August 25, 2004. Consolidating the motion for default judgment against defendants Irondequoit, Norelli and Vidago with the motion filed against Satisfied, I referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Go for determination of the amount of damages, including liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees. On November 30, 2005 Magistrate Go issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") in which she awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount of the unpaid contributions plus 6 percent interest and attorneys fees. Now before this Court is plaintiffs' objection to that portion of the Report which concluded that the correct rate of interest was 6 percent. For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Judge's determination of the applicable interest rate is reversed, and the remainder of the Report is adopted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the complaint and the other submissions of the plaintiff in connection with this motion. I recite only those facts necessary to decide the present motion.

The Funds are employee benefit plans within the meaning of §3(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §10002(3), which provides various pension, health and welfare, annuity, job training, vacation and sick leave, and legal services benefits to covered employees, retirees and their dependents. The Funds are operated pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust ("Trust Agreement"). Each of the defendants was required to pay to the Funds contributions due and owing under the Trust Agreement, but each defendant failed to do so. As noted, the Magistrate Judge determined that the defendants were liable for damages in the amount of their unpaid contributions plus 6 percent interest and attorneys' fees.

DISCUSSION

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report follows the standards established in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Those parts of the report to which timely written objection has been made by any party are reviewed de novo, but the uncontested portions of the report may be adopted unless they show clear error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151-52, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1989); Tapia-Garcia v. United States, 53 F.Supp.2d 370, 373 (S.D.N.Y.1999).

Plaintiffs object to the Report only to the extent that it calculated damages based upon a 6 percent interest rate. Plaintiffs claim that under the relevant statutory scheme the appropriate interest rate is 16 percent. The statutory scheme which provides for interest on unpaid contributions is as follows:

§502(g)(2)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2) provides that a fiduciary seeking to enforce provisions of an employee benefit plan is entitled to recover:

(A) the unpaid contributions

(B) interest on the unpaid contributions

(C) an amount equal to the greater of:

(I) interest on the unpaid ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.