REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

ANNE Y. SHIELDS, Magistrate Judge.

Having reviewed all of the moving papers, the Court hereby finds as follows:

Service of Process and Default:

[✓] The record reflects that proper service was made on defendant. DE [21].

[✓] According to the record, no answer, motion or other appearance was filed on behalf of defendant.

[✓] The Clerk has properly entered notation of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) DE [23].

[✓] A copy of the Original signed CBA was submitted. Exhibit A, DE [27-1].

[✓] A copy of the Amended CBA was submitted. Exhibit C, DE [1], which covers the specified time period.

[✓] Required Notices were sent to Plaintiff as required by CBA or trust agreements. ¶ 6, DE [27].

[✓] Summonses were issued and the Defendant was served on April 11, 2018. See DE [20], [21].

[✓] When Defendant failed to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, at Plaintiff's request the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant. See DE [23].

I. Liability

Defendant's default constitutes "an admission of all well-pleaded allegations against the defaulting party." Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 BEARGRAM Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, the court is "required to determine whether the [plaintiff]'s allegations establish [defendant]'s liability as a matter of law." Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 2009). Based upon examination of the complaint and motion papers, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the uncontroverted allegations, without more, establish the Defendant's liability on the following cause(s) of this action. Thus, the Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment be GRANTED.

II. Damages

Based upon [] a hearing or ✓ 2611 review of affidavits and other documentary evidence, see Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp, 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997)(court may rely upon affidavits and documents in calculating damages upon default), the Court finds that plaintiff has established damages in the following amounts as against defendant.

Attorney's Fees & Other Costs

Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Agreement and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), "which mandates the granting of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in ERISA matters brought by fiduciaries to enforce the terms of the [collective bargaining agreement]." Local 348 Health & Welfare Fund v. Milmar Food Group, L.L.C., 2006 WL 1025075, at *5 (E.D.N.Y March 24, 2006) (adopted on April 19, 2006(ARR)). As a general matter in determining appropriate attorneys' fees, the "starting point" for calculating a "`presumptively reasonable fee," is "the lodestar—the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case." Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Both this Court and the Supreme Court have held that the lodestar— the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case—creates a `presumptively reasonable fee'") (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Assoc. v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008)) (and following Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S.Ct. 1662, 1673 (2010)). The reasonableness of hourly rates are guided by the market rate "[p]revailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation," Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11 (1984), and the relevant community is generally the "district in which the court sits," Polk v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir. 1983).

The Plaintiffs in this case are seeking the following attorneys' fees:

The Court finds these rates and hours expended to be within the reasonable range. See United States v. Cotter, 234 F.Supp.3d 392, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C., 49 F.Supp.3d 328 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); see also Sass v. MTA Bus Co., 6 F.Supp.3d 238, 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); see also Finkel v. Captre Elec. Supply Co. Inc., 2015 WL 5316257, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2015) adopted by, 2015 WL 5330388 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2015); see also Gesualdi v. Metro. Sewer, Inc., 2016 WL 943533, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016); see also Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor—Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Rock—It Contracting Inc., 2015 WL 1221500, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015)

In addition, the plaintiffs seek to recover litigation costs for photocopies. "Courts typically allow counsel to recover their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses." Viafara v. Mciz Corp., 2014 WL 1777438, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2014). This Court recommends awarding the plaintiffs the $10.35 sought in costs. See, e.g., Marshall v. Reisman, 2013 WL 1563335, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013).

Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully reports and recommends that the plaintiffs be awarded $4,945 in attorneys' fees and $10.35 in costs.3 See Sheet Metals Workers' Nat. Pension Fund v. RHB Installations Inc., 2015 WL 1509498 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court respectfully recommends:

(1) a default judgment is warranted and should be GRANTED against Defendant Carlos Lizza & Sons Paving Inc.;

(2) Plaintiffs' request of $149,190.28 for unpaid contributions be GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiffs' request of $15,543.55 for interest on unpaid contributions be GRANTED;

(4) Plaintiffs' request of $29,838.06 for liquidated damages be GRANTED;

(5) Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees of $4,945 be GRANTED; and

(6) Plaintiffs be awarded a total of $10.35 in other costs.

OBJECTIONS

A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being electronically served on counsel. Further, the Court is directing Plaintiffs to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation by overnight mail and first-class mail to Defendant at its known address(es) and to file proof of service on ECF by May 30, 2019. Any written objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006 & Supp. V 2011); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to the district judge assigned to this action prior to the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period for filing objections. Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will preclude further review of this report and recommendation either by the District Court of Court of Appeals. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985) ("[A] party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal."); Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.").