From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masino v. a to E, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 21, 2010
09-CV-1651 (KAM) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2010)

Summary

awarding $1,137 in audit fees

Summary of this case from Bd. of Trs. v. Megrant Corp.

Opinion

09-CV-1651 (KAM) (CLP).

September 21, 2010


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT


This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R R") of Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak, dated September 3, 2010 (ECF No. 20), recommending that the court grant plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendant A to E, Inc. ("defendant") in the amount of $32,081.78, plus interest, for defendant's violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145. The Report and Recommendation was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 72.1, and it advised that any objections were to be filed within 14 days, or by September 20, 2010. ( Id. at 16.) To date, no objection has been filed.

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)(C). Where, as here, no objection to the R R has been filed, the district court "need only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's notes (1983).

Upon a careful review of the pleadings, plaintiffs' unopposed submissions, evidence submitted in support of plaintiffs' default judgment motion, and Judge Pollak's thorough R R, the court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor against defendant in the following amounts: (1) $22,314.60 in unpaid contributions to the Fund; (2) $3,482.70 in interest on the unpaid contributions at a rate of $6.11 per day from March 1, 2009 to September 21, 2010; (3) $2,231.46 in liquidated damages; (4) $2,676.00 in attorney's fees; (5) $1,137.00 in audit fees; and (6) $350.00 in costs, for a total award of $32,191.76, plus any additional interest that accrues from the date of this Order until the entry of judgment at a rate of $6.11 per day, together with post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close this case. Plaintiffs' counsel shall serve a copy of this order on defendant by certified mail, and shall file proof of service via Electronic Case Filing within 3 days of the date of this order.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Masino v. a to E, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 21, 2010
09-CV-1651 (KAM) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2010)

awarding $1,137 in audit fees

Summary of this case from Bd. of Trs. v. Megrant Corp.

awarding $1,137 in audit fees

Summary of this case from Ferrara v. CMR Contracting LLC

awarding $1,137 in audit fees

Summary of this case from Gesualdi v. RRZ Trucking Co., LLC
Case details for

Masino v. a to E, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT MASINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A TO E, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Sep 21, 2010

Citations

09-CV-1651 (KAM) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2010)

Citing Cases

Trustees of the Metal Polishers Local 8a-28a Funds v. Prestige Restoration & Maintenance, LLC

Based on a review of the record, the Court finds these costs to be reasonable, and awards Plaintiff $430 in…

Mantel v. Smash.com Inc.

Furthermore, Attorney Liebowitz billed one hour for "process service of summons and complaint" and "request…