The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matsumoto, United States District Judge:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 19, 2010, petitioner Blasters, Drillrunners and Miners Union Local 29 ("Local 29") commenced this action to enforce an arbitration award against respondent Trocom Construction Corp. ("Trocom"). After Trocom defaulted and the Clerk of the Court entered default on February 24, 2011, Local 29 moved for a default judgment against Trocom on March 3, 2011, which this court referred to Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go on March 4, 2011. Subsequently, Trocom appeared in the action and filed a motion on April 7, 2011 to vacate the entry of default, which Local 29 opposed.
Currently before the court is the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Go on August 15, 2011, recommending that the court grant Trocom's motion to vacate the notation of default and deny Local 29's motion for entry of default judgment. (ECF No. 24, Report and Recommendation.) Local 29 timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 25, Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Pet. Obj.").) In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Local 29's timely objections, the court has undertaken a de novo review of the full record including the applicable law, the underlying record, the parties' submissions on the instant motions and accompanying affidavits, the Report and Recommendation, and Local 29's objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Trocom did not respond. See id. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Go's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The facts and procedural history regarding the instant motions are set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation. The court reviews de novo the facts in the record relevant to the parties' submissions.
On December 2, 2004, Local 29 and Trocom entered into a one-page short-form agreement (the "2004 Short-Form Agreement") that bound Trocom to the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the General Contractors Association of New York (the "GCANY") and Local 29 in effect from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006 (the "2002 CBA") and "as amended and extended from time to time." (Pet. Obj. at 2-3; ECF No. 17, Affidavit of Salvatore Trovato ("Trovato Aff.") ¶ 6; ECF No. 17-2, the 2004 Short-Form Agreement.) Trocom asserts that it has not been a party to any other CBA with Local 29 and was not a member of the GCANY at any relevant time. (Trovato Aff. ¶¶ 7-8.)
The 2002 CBA also contained an "evergreen clause": This Agreement shall continue in effect until and including June 30, 2006, and during each year thereafter unless on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of March 2006, or on or before the fifteenth (15th) day of March of any year thereafter, written notice of termination or proposed changes shall have been served by either party on the other party.
In the event that written notice shall have been served[,] an agreement supplemental hereto, embodying such changes agreed upon, shall be drawn up and signed by June 30th of the year in which the notice shall have been served. (ECF No. 17-3, 2002 CBA, Art. IV.) According to Local 29, "a successor agreement was negotiated between Local 29 and the [GCANY]" in 2006, which was in effect from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2011 (the "2006 CBA"). (Pet. Obj. at 3; see ECF No. 17-4, 2006 CBA.) There is no evidence in the record that Trocom was served with written notice of any proposed changes to the 2002 CBA, participated in the negotiation of the 2006 CBA, signed the 2006 CBA, or received any notice of the existence of the 2006 CBA until after the arbitration award was issued.
In connection with a dispute arising in 2009 from Trocom's alleged failure to use members of Local 29 to perform drilling work at certain job sites, an arbitration hearing was held on April 28, 2010, at which Trocom did not appear. (ECF No. 21-4, Arbitration Opinion and Award dated June 10, 2010 ("Arbitration Opinion") at 1-3.) The arbitrator found that Trocom was bound by and had violated the 2006 CBA and entered an award in favor of Local 29 in the amount of approximately $128,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at 1, 6.) Finally, on October 19, 2010, Local 29 commenced this action to enforce the arbitration award against Trocom.
Local 29 poses two primary objections to the Report and Recommendation, each of which the court will address in turn.
I. Objection One: Trocom Has Not Established that It Has a Potentially Meritorious Defense
Local 29 objects to the determination in the Report and Recommendation that Trocom has proffered a potentially meritorious defense. (Pet. Obj. at 7-12.) In support of its objection, Local 29 contends that the Report and Recommendation erroneously relies on Tile Setters & Tile Finishers Union, Local Union No. 7 v. Speedwell Design/BFK Enter., LLC, No. 06-cv-5211 (KAM), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27270 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009) ("Speedwell"), because it is distinguishable from the present case. (Pet. Obj. at 8, 10-12.) Additionally, Local 29 asserts that, because the 2002 CBA contained a "sweeping" arbitration clause and an "evergreen clause," the arbitrator, rather than the court, should determine whether the parties continued to be bound by the 2002 CBA after June 30, 2006. (Id. at 9-10.) Finally, Local 29 argues that because this is an action to enforce an arbitration award, the determination by the arbitrator is entitled to judicial deference. (Id. at 8.)
As an initial matter, the contentions in Local 29's objections were presented to Magistrate Judge Go nearly word-for-word in Local 29's submission on Trocom's underlying motion to vacate the default. Where, as here, objections to a Report and Recommendation merely rehash arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge, the standard of review undertaken by the District Court is not de novo but clear error. See Michaud v. Nippon Cargo Airlines, Co., No. 09-CV-3375(RRM), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128705, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2011) ("When a party simply reiterates the original arguments made to the magistrate judge, the Court will review the report strictly for clear error." (citation omitted)); Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error where objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the ...