Opinion
Civil Action No. 94-1607 (NHP).
July 27, 2000.
Allen J. Barkin, Esq., SCHWARTZ, BARKIN MITCHELL, Union, N.J., for Plaintiffs
Steven G. Sanders, Esq., ARSENEAULT FASSETT, Chatham, N.J., for Greitzer Defendants.
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS LETTER OPINION IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Dear Counsel:
This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge G. Donald Haneke which was filed on June 9, 2000. This matter was decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge G. Donald Haneke is ADOPTED.
DISCUSSION
By way of background, Judge Bissell entered default judgments against the "Greitzer" defendants, excluding defendant Wendy Greitzer. Nonetheless, Judge Bissell gave the Greitzer defendants the opportunity to oppose the plaintiff's proofs regarding the quantity of money damages to be adduced at a proof hearing. Magistrate Judge Haneke conducted the proof hearing which addressed only the allegations as set forth in the original Complaint.On June 9, 2000, Magistrate Judge Haneke issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he concluded that judgement should be entered in favor of the Estate of Melchoir Maccario against the defaulting defendants in the sum of $195,238.79, plus counsel fees and costs as itemized in the Report, plus interest.
On March 3, 2000, plaintiff Melchoir Maccario died. To date, it does not appear that the "Estate of Melchoir Maccario" has been substituted as a party. The Court suggests that plaintiff's counsel immediately take the appropriate steps towards remedying the presently defective pleadings.
The legal standard of review applicable to a determination made by a magistrate judge depends upon whether the issue to be addressed is dispositive or non-dispositive of the case. Pursuant to the Federal Magistrate Act of 1979, a United States Magistrate Judge may "hear and determine any [non-dispositive] pretrial matter pending before the court." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (West 2000). If a magistrate judge directly rules on a non-dispositive pretrial matter and issues an order, a United States District Court Judge may reconsider the order only where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See id.
The Federal Magistrate Act was enacted in 1968 and was referred to simply as the "Federal Magistrates Act." Since 1968, the Act has been amended several times "to expand the scope of the duties of magistrate judges in order to alleviate the increased burdens on district courts." Cooper Hospital/ University Medical Center v. Sullivan, et al . , 183 F.R.D. 119, 126 (D.N.J. 1998) (referencing H.R. Rep. No. 94-1609 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162)). In 1979, Congress amended the Act and provided that the short title to the Act be referred to as the "Federal Magistrate Act of 1979."
The standard of review governing non-dispositive pretrial matters provided in § 636(B)(1)(A) is mirrored in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard governing non- dispositive matters also has been adopted in this jurisdiction and is provided in Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(A): "A Judge shall consider the appeal . . . and set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
By way of comparison, a magistrate judge may also "conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings," into dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2000). However, since a magistrate judge cannot directly rule on a dispositive issue, he must submit to a district judge "proposed findings of fact and recommendations" for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). If, within ten days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendations, a party files written objections, a district court judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made. See id.
Because the subject Report and Recommendation purports to establish the amount of monetary damages due and owing as a result of a previously entered default judgment against the Greitzer defendants, it is sufficiently determinative of the parties' rights to warrant a de novo review by this Court.
The defaulting defendants object to the Report and Recommendation. First, they argue that the damages awarded should not stem from breaches of the duties supplied by ERISA. Instead, they contend that an award of damages should stem from breaches of the common law contractual obligations pled in Count Thirteen of the Amended Complaint (which, incidentally, they assert does not support an award of attorney's fees). The defaulting defendant also argue that Judge Haneke failed to apply the appropriate Third Circuit precedent on the issue of whether to award attorney's fees and, if so, how much to award.
Plaintiff endorses Judge Haneke's Report and Recommendation with a few exceptions. First, plaintiff argues that Judge Haneke should not have denied in futuro damages beyond the date of Mr. Maccario's death on March 25, 2000 because the hearing on the matter was complete and the evidence was closed more than eleven months before his death. Second, plaintiff argues that Judge Haneke failed to award damages for the denial of health insurance from March 1993 through Mr. Maccario's death in March 2000. Finally, plaintiff argues that Judge Haneke failed to allow damages for breach of contract on monies that were to be paid upon the sale of the "Pequannock land."
Based on a review of the relevant case law and a review of the entire record in this case, the Court is satisfied that the recommendations and conclusions arrived at within the Report and Recommendation are correct and supported by the relevant case law. In lieu of reiterating the entire spirit of the Report and Recommendation, the Court will instead address a few key points. First, the Court agrees that the pension and medical benefits deprivations constitute violations of ERISA. Said violations both were sufficiently pled and based on the testimony in the record, including but not limited to the testimony of Allan R. Boushie, plaintiff's expert witness, the damages "naturally flowed" from the ERISA violations. Moreover, Judge Haneke properly denied in futuro damages beyond the date of Mr. Maccario's death on March 25, 2000 even though the hearing was complete on the date of death. Since Mr. Maccario died prior to the determination of damages, the damages became "fixed" by the amount due and owing up until the time of plaintiff's death. Finally, Judge Haneke did not err in finding that plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof with respect to the "Pequannock land." As Judge Haneke stated, the record was not sufficiently clear that the land was sold or, if it was, that the proceeds were received by Greitzer, Inc. Finally, the Court has reviewed the Affidavit of Services submitted by plaintiff's attorney to Judge Haneke and deems the application fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge G. Donald Haneke is ADOPTED.
An appropriate Order of Judgment accompanies this Letter Opinion.