Northern Metropolitan Foundation for Healthcare, Inc. et al. v. RSUI Indemnity Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x

NORTHERN METROPOLITAN FOUNDATION FOR HEALTHCARE, INC. ET AL., MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiffs, 20-CV-2224 (EK)(VMS)

-against-

RSUI INDEMNITY CO.,

Defendant.

------------------------------------x

ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: The Court has received Chief Magistrate Judge Scanlon’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated August 15, 2025. ECF No. 58. Judge Scanlon recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the judgment be granted in part and denied in part, “such that Plaintiffs be awarded $647,319.79 in attorneys’ fees and $233,386.45 in pre-judgment interest thereon.” Id. at 9. Defendant filed no objections, and the time to do so has expired. While Plaintiffs did “not object to the substance of” the R&R, they recently raised the new argument that pre-judgment interest should be calculated through the date on which the amended judgment issues, rather than that of the initial judgment. ECF No. 59, at 3. A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. V irgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), aff’d, 578 F. App’x 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (“A proper

objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”) However, the court may also “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge” at its discretion. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).

We adopt the R&R in substantial part but agree that Plaintiffs should be awarded pre-judgment interest through the date on which the amended judgment issues, given the omission of a damages calculation from the initial judgment. See Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D'Urso, 371 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue an amended judgment that awards Plaintiffs $647,319.79 in attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment interest thereon, calculated at a rate of 9% per year from the date on which Plaintiffs paid a given invoice — as identified in the schedule provided at ECF No. 57-2 — to the date of the amended judgment. The Clerk should exclude all invoices paid prior to May 11, 2018, as well as $6,438.50 of the $7,417.40 paid on May 11, 2018, from the interest calculation. See id.; R&R 8 n.4.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United State

s District Judge

Dated: February 3, 2026 Brooklyn, New York