Kilkenny, as Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Annuity Fund v. Manco Enterprises, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-04765
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x JAMES KILKENNY, ET AL., as Trustees of the Construction Council Local Union 175 Pension Fund, JAMES KILKENNY, ET AL., as Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Welfare MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Fund, JAMES KILKENNY, ET AL., as Case No. 20-CV-4765-FB-TAM Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Annuity Fund, and JAMES KILKENNY, ET AL., as Trustees of the Construction Council Local 175 Training Fund,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

MANCO ENTERPRISES, INC., MANETTA ENTERPRISES, INC., and RIMANI GROUP, INC.,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiffs: For Defendants Manco Enterprises, ELISE S. FELDMAN Inc., and Manetta Enterprises, Inc: Rothman Rocco LaRuffa, LLP ANDREA H. MARCUS 3 West Main Street, Suite 200 161 West 61st Street, 19th Floor Elmsford, New York 10523 New York, New York 10023

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On December 19, 2024, the Court referred a proposed judgment by Pension, Welfare, Annuity, and Training Funds, by their Trustees James Kilkenny and others, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl for the calculation of damages against Manco Enterprises, Inc. (“Manco”) and Manetta

Enterprises, Inc. (“Manetta”) (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants did not oppose the proposed judgment. On February 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court to enter judgment against Defendants Manco and Manetta in a total amount of $36,501,916.44, including $18,871,118.45 for delinquent contributions, $15,743,686.14 in interest, and $1,887,111.85 in liquidated damages. R&R at 5–6.

The R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, i.e., until February 28, 2025, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal aboth before the district court and appellate courts.”

Id. at 6. No objections have been filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties

receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citations omitted)). The Court will, however, 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 without de novo review. The Court enters judgment for Plaintiffs against Defendants Manco and Manetta of a total of $36,501,916.44,

including $18,871,118.45 for delinquent contributions, $15,743,686.14 in interest, and $1,887,111.85 in liquidated damages. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this opinion. SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block_________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York March 12, 2025