ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ryu's Report and Recommendation Re: plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, as well as plaintiffs' objections to the report. The court finds the report correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect other than the amount of contractual liquidated damages, as explained below.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is GRANTED.

The report and recommendation first sets forth the three categories of damages sought by plaintiffs: (1) contributions that became due before the suit was filed but were paid after the filing of the action, (2) contributions that became due after the suit was filed and were paid before the ruling on this motion, and (3) contributions that were paid, but were paid late, before the filing of the action.

The report recommended that statutory liquidated damages be awarded for category (1) in the amount of $8,258.26. See Dkt. 25 at 9. As to categories (2) and (3), the report recommended that no statutory liquidated damages be awarded, but instead, that liquidated damages be awarded as a matter of contract. Id. at 9. As a result, rather than receiving the 20% liquidated damages award provided for by statute, plaintiffs would receive a 10% liquidated damages award provided for by the parties' contract. In the report, the court calculated a 10% liquidated damages award by taking the total requested liquidated damages award of $108,394.00, subtracting the $8,258.26 mentioned above, then dividing the remainder by two (on the assumption that the remainder represented a 20% liquidated damages award for the contributions in categories (2) and (3)).

Plaintiffs filed objections to the latter calculation, arguing that for the months of October and November 2013, January through June 2014, August through December 2014, and January through February 2015, the liquidated damages were already calculated at 10% in plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, so they did not need to be divided in two by the court. In contrast, the requested liquidated damages for the months of June through October 2015 were calculated at 20% in the default judgment motion, making the court's division correct in those instances. Even though plaintiffs' original motion papers did not make this clear, it has since submitted evidence showing the contribution amounts in those months, and indeed, the originally-requested liquidated damages for the months of October and November 2013, January through June 2014, August through December 2014, and January through February 2015 do represent a 10% award. See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. A, B. Accordingly, the court sustains plaintiffs' objection, and the contractual liquidated damages figure will be adjusted to $83,678.32 (which represents a 10% award for October and November 2013, January through June 2014, August through December 2014, and January through February 2015), less the amount already paid by defendants ($15,100.62), resulting in a total of $68,577.70 in liquidated damages for categories (2) and (3). See Dkt. 27-1, Ex. B, Dkt. 24-1, ¶ 10. When combined with the $8,258.26 from category (1), it results in a total liquidated damages award of $76,835.95.

When combined with the other amounts recommended in the report ($12,135.82 in interest, $7,653.00 in attorneys' fees, and $483.00 in costs), it results in a total of $97,107.77, and the court hereby awards that amount to plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.