Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund v. Southwest Air Conditioning, Inc., 1:18cv578. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Virginia Number: infdco20180924574 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER T.S. ELLIS, III , District Judge . On August 31, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson entered a Report and Recommendation (-Report") in this ERISA and LMRA action, recommending that plaintiffs' motion for default judgment be granted. Specifically, Judge Anderson recommends that judgment be entered against Southwest Air Conditioning Inc. in the amount of $184,501.70. Upon consideration of the record and Judge Anderson's thorough Report, to which no objections have be
More

ORDER

On August 31, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson entered a Report and Recommendation (-Report") in this ERISA and LMRA action, recommending that plaintiffs' motion for default judgment be granted. Specifically, Judge Anderson recommends that judgment be entered against Southwest Air Conditioning Inc. in the amount of $184,501.70.

Upon consideration of the record and Judge Anderson's thorough Report, to which no objections have been filed, and having found no clear error.1

The Court ADOPTS, as its own, the findings of fact and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, as set forth in the Report (Doc. 21).

Accordingly,

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for default judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to provide a copy of this Order to defendant at its last known address.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Rule 58 judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Southwest Air Conditioning Inc. in the amount of $184,561.70 — which consists of $143,263.65 in unpaid contributions, $11,515.27 in interest. $18,153.11 in liquidated damages, $3,467.97 in audit fees, and $8,101.70 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The Clerk is further directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to place this matter among the ended causes.

FootNotes


1. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.34 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a magistrate's report, the court "need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."').
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer