Summary
reducing the number of billed hours in an attorney's fee award when counsel's work was highly duplicative and only remedied the insufficiency of counsel's initial submission, explaining that "a client should not be billed both for the insufficient work performed by their attorney and the subsequent work that was required to remedy counsel's initial inadequate efforts"
Summary of this case from Trs. of the N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, & Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educ. & Indus. Fund v. M&B Builders Grp. Inc.Opinion
14 CV 4097 (SJ) (CLP)
08-30-2016
TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY WELFARE FUND, et. al, Plaintiffs, v. EAQ CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al, Defendants.
APPEARANCES VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 By: Nicole Marimon Elina Burke Jonathan Roffe Todd Dickerson Michael Bauman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
APPEARANCES VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
By: Nicole Marimon
Elina Burke
Jonathan Roffe
Todd Dickerson
Michael Bauman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak. Judge Pollak issued the Report on August 12, 2016, and provided the parties until August 29, 2016 to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Pollak's recommendations were due by August 29, 2016. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Pollak's Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2016
Brooklyn, NY
/s/_________
Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J.