Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

UFCW Local 50 Pension Fund v. Food Depot, Inc., 16-cv-6197 (ADS) (SIL). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20180301p02 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2018
Summary: ADOPTION ORDER ARTHUR D. SPATT , District Judge . On December 14, 2016, the Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendant Food Depot Inc. f/k/a Ward's Manufacturing Inc. (the "Defendant"). On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs UFCW Local 50 Pension Fund, and Larry Magarik as the Sole Trustee Of The UFCW Local 50 Pension Fund (collectively, the Plaintiffs") filed a motion for default judgment. On May 1, 2017, the Court referred the Plaintiffs' motion to United States Magistrate Judge Steve
More

ADOPTION ORDER

On December 14, 2016, the Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendant Food Depot Inc. f/k/a Ward's Manufacturing Inc. (the "Defendant"). On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs UFCW Local 50 Pension Fund, and Larry Magarik as the Sole Trustee Of The UFCW Local 50 Pension Fund (collectively, the Plaintiffs") filed a motion for default judgment.

On May 1, 2017, the Court referred the Plaintiffs' motion to United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke for a report and recommendation.

On February 7, 2018, Judge Locke issued a report and recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion be granted in part, and denied in part. Specifically, the R&R recommended that the portion of the motion seeking outstanding withdrawal liability be granted and that Plaintiff be awarded $680,955.00; denied as to the portions seeking prejudgment interest and liquidated damages with leave to renew upon submission of the appropriate supporting documentation; and that Plaintiffs be awarded $9,680.00 in attorneys' fees and $617.20 in costs, for a total sum of $691,252.20.

It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections.

As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).

This order does not close the case, as the Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for liquidated damages.

SO ORDERED.

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