Humberto Restrepo, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry v. Rosciti Communications, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X : HUMBERTO RESTREPO, as Chairman of the : Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, Petitioner, : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : – against – 25-CV-2203 (AMD) (SDE) :

ROSCITI COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, :

: Respondent. : --------------------------------------------------------------- X

A NN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:

On April 21, 2025, the petitioner, Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical

Industry (“JIB”), brought this action pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974, (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and § 301 of the Labor Management

Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, to confirm and enforce an arbitration award rendered pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between JIB and the respondent, Rosciti Communications, LLC. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 4.) The petitioner also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 4 at 5–8.) The respondent did not respond, and on May 28, 2025, the petitioner requested that the petition be deemed an unopposed motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 10.) On June 4, 2025, the Court directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the order and file proof of service on ECF by June 6, 2025, and said that if the respondent did not appear or otherwise respond by June 20, 2025, the Court would grant the petitioner’s request. (ECF Order dated June 4, 2025.) The respondent did not appear or otherwise respond by the Court’s deadline, and has still not appeared in the case. On August 7, 2025, the Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak, and on August 29, 2025, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz. (See ECF Orders dated Aug. 7 and Aug. 29, 2025.) On November 6, 2025, Judge Eichenholtz issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the petition in part. (ECF No.

13.) Judge Eichenholtz recommended that the Court uphold the arbitrator’s decision and confirm the award. (Id. at 7–9.) Because the petitioner did not request pre-judgment interest separate from confirmation of the award, Judge Eichenholtz recommended that the Court not award pre- judgment interest. (Id. at 9.) Although the petitioner did not explicitly request post-judgment interest, he sought interest on the principal amounts not paid to the employee benefit plans at issue, and the arbitration award included those amounts. (Id. at 10.) Thus, Judge Eichenholtz recommended that the Court grant post-judgment interest from the date of entry of judgment to the date when judgment is satisfied, at the rate provide for by 28 U.S.C § 1961. (Id.) Judge Eichenholtz also recommended that the Court award $1,735 in attorneys’ fees and $405 in costs. (Id. at 10–15.)1

No party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation and the time for doing so has passed. A district court reviewing a report and recommendation “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). To accept a report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

1 Judge Eichenholtz concluded that the hourly rate for one of the petitioner’s lawyers was high given her title and experience, and recommended $1,735 in attorney’s fees instead of the $2,682.75 that the petitioner requested. (ECF No. 13 at 14.) (citation omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Eichenholtz’s well-reasoned report and recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety. The arbitration award is confirmed, and the petitioner is awarded $72,720.04, post-judgment interest from the date of entry of judgment to the date when judgment

is satisfied at the rate provide for by 28 U.S.C § 1961, $1,735 in attorneys’ fees, and $405 in costs. SO ORDERED. _ _ _ _s_/A__n_n_ M__._ D__o_n_n_e_ll_y________ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 10, 2025