N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde
341 F. Supp. 3d 334
| S.D. Ill. | 2018Background
- Pension and annuity funds (the "Funds") sued certain former trustees under RICO and ERISA for losses from corrupt conduct; Michael Forde and John Greaney are two remaining defendants.
- The Funds moved for summary judgment; Forde and Greaney cross-moved for summary judgment and damages; motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.
- Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended granting partial summary judgment for the Funds on liability under RICO and ERISA and on compensatory damages of $4,973,259.92 each (pre-trebling).
- The R&R addressed the Funds' right to seek further damages beyond prior restitution/settlement and discussed calculation of treble damages under RICO.
- The R&R concluded the Funds could offset Greaney’s annuity; the District Court modified the R&R to clarify the Funds may offset both Greaney’s and Forde’s pension/annuity payments.
- The Court declined to consider newly-submitted evidentiary documents concerning a spousal waiver/revocation (Imelda Greaney) because the materials were not previously presented to the magistrate and no compelling justification was offered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under RICO and ERISA | Funds: trustees engaged in racketeering and breached ERISA duties; summary judgment appropriate on liability. | Greaney/Forde: moved for summary judgment; objected to portions of R&R. | Court adopts R&R: partial summary judgment for Funds on liability for both RICO and ERISA. |
| Compensatory damages and trebling under RICO | Funds: damages computed as found by magistrate; treble damages available under RICO. | Defs: disputed calculations and entitlement to amounts. | Court adopts magistrate's compensatory damage findings ($4,973,259.92 each) and allows further proceedings on trebling calculation. |
| Offset against pension/annuity and spousal benefit | Funds: may offset defendants' pension/annuity payments to satisfy damages; offsets should apply to defendants' benefits. | Greaneys: argued spouse (Imelda) revoked waiver and offsets should not reduce her benefits; disputes timing/validity of waiver/revocation. | Court grants Funds partial summary judgment permitting offsets against both Greaney’s and Forde’s pension/annuity; denied summary judgment on spousal waiver issue (to be tried). |
| Consideration of new evidence and evidentiary objections | Funds: opposed late submission of documents; urged exclusion absent compelling justification. | Greaneys/Forde: submitted additional pension-related documents with objections, claimed inadvertent omission. | Court refused to consider new documents on de novo review (no compelling justification); evidentiary issues deemed premature and reserved for trial or motions in limine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Brown, 655 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (clear‑error review standard for unobjected portions of magistrate judge R&R)
- Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (objections that merely reiterate prior arguments warrant clear‑error review)
- Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly‑Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (objections that relitigate matters previously considered are insufficient)
- Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132 (2d Cir. 1994) (district courts may decline new evidence submitted with objections absent compelling justification)
- Pan Am World Airways, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 894 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1990) (limitations on presenting further testimony/evidence at district court stage when not presented to magistrate)