Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc.

E.D. New York

Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 4, 2019

Docket2:17-cv-02387

StatusUnknown

This text of Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc. (Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc., (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHEAST CARPENTERS HEALTH, PENSION, ANNUITY, APPRENTICESHIP, and LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION FUNDS, ADOPTION ORDER 2:17-cv-02387 (ADS) (ARL) Plaintiffs, -against- CALI ENTERPRISES, INC., CALADRI DEVELOPMENT CORP., CALI BROTHERS, INC., J. CALI, INC., and CARJEN FENCE CO., INC., Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X SPATT, District Judge: On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to sections 502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3), 1145 (“ERISA”), and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (“LMRA”), and other applicable law, to collect delinquent employer contributions to a group of employee benefit plans, and for related relief. On September 11, 2018, the Clerk of the Court certified the Defendants’ default based upon their failure to answer or otherwise appear in this action. On October 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a default judgment. On October 2, 2018, the Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a report and recommendation as to whether the motion should be granted, and if so, what if any relief should be given. 1 On August 20, 2019, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion for default judgment be denied and that the Plaintiffs be required to address whether the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). The Plaintiff filed proof of service the same day. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not

filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies the Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The Plaintiffs are hereby directed to show cause, in writing through a memorandum to be submitted by October 4, 2019, why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York September 4, 2019 ___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHEAST CARPENTERS HEALTH, PENSION, ANNUITY, APPRENTICESHIP, and LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION FUNDS, ADOPTION ORDER 2:17-cv-02387 (ADS) (ARL) Plaintiffs, -against- CALI ENTERPRISES, INC., CALADRI DEVELOPMENT CORP., CALI BROTHERS, INC., J. CALI, INC., and CARJEN FENCE CO., INC., Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X SPATT, District Judge: On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to sections 502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3), 1145 (“ERISA”), and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (“LMRA”), and other applicable law, to collect delinquent employer contributions to a group of employee benefit plans, and for related relief. On September 11, 2018, the Clerk of the Court certified the Defendants’ default based upon their failure to answer or otherwise appear in this action. On October 1, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a default judgment. On October 2, 2018, the Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a report and recommendation as to whether the motion should be granted, and if so, what if any relief should be given. 1 On August 20, 2019, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion for default judgment be denied and that the Plaintiffs be required to address whether the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996). The Plaintiff filed proof of service the same day. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not

filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court denies the Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The Plaintiffs are hereby directed to show cause, in writing through a memorandum to be submitted by October 4, 2019, why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York September 4, 2019 ___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Cali Enterprises, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-northeast-carpenters-health-pension-annuity-nyed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack