From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trs. of the Local 7 Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Caesar Max Const. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 12, 2019
Case No. 18-CV-1339 (FB) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 18-CV-1339 (FB) (LB)

03-12-2019

TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY WELFARE FUND, THE LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY ANNUITY FUND, AND THE TILE LAYERS LOCAL UNION 52 PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAESAR MAX CONST. INC., et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BLOCK, Senior District Judge :

On February 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the R&R recommended that "Plaintiffs should be granted a "declaratory judgment" that Caesar Max was bound by the CBA at all relevant times" and that "Caesar Max should be compelled to produce their books and records from January 1, 2014 through the present." R&R at 25. The R&R also provided that if defendants do not produce their books and records, "Plaintiffs should be granted leave to renew their motion for a default judgment." Id. Lastly, the R&R recommended that "Plaintiffs' request for damages, attorney's fees, costs and audit fees should be denied without prejudice." Id.

The R&R advised that objections were due within fourteen days from service of the R&R. R&R at 26. The R&R was served on the defendants on February 11, 2019, making objections due by February 25, 2019. To date, no objections have been filed.

When no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the Court may adopt it without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). The Court may excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).

No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and the Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Frederic Block

FREDERIC BLOCK

Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York
March 12, 2019


Summaries of

Trs. of the Local 7 Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Caesar Max Const. Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 12, 2019
Case No. 18-CV-1339 (FB) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019)
Case details for

Trs. of the Local 7 Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Caesar Max Const. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 7 TILE INDUSTRY WELFARE FUND, THE LOCAL 7 TILE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 12, 2019

Citations

Case No. 18-CV-1339 (FB) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019)

Citing Cases

TV Vues Advert. Agency, Inc. v. Boro Park View, LLC

Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court may adopt it without…