Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Trustees of the Local 807 Labor-Management Health Fund v. M & M Building Products

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 31, 2010

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 807 LABOR-MANAGEMENT HEALTH FUND AND TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 807 LABOR-MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
M & M BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Block, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On March 17, 2010, Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that plaintiffs (collectively, "the Trustees") be awarded damages stemming from the failure of defendant, M & M Building Products, Inc. ("M&M"), to pay contributions to the pension funds managed by the Trustees in accord with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The R&R recommends that the Trustees be awarded: (1) unpaid ERISA contributions in the amount of $42,254.94; (2) interest in the amount of $17,226.83 through March 17, 2010, plus $20.83 per day through the date of judgment; (3) liquidated damages in the amount of $17,226.83; and (4) attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $4,346.25.

The R&R warned that failure to object would waive any right to further judicial review; the R&R also ordered the Trustees to serve a copy of the R&R upon M&M. See R&R at 6, Docket Entry No. 13. According to an affidavit filed by the Trustees, M&M was served on March 18, 2010, see Docket Entry No. 14; no objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error, see Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000); no such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

Brooklyn, New York March 31, 2010

20100331

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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