Trustees of the Local 522 Pension Fund v. Bayway Lumber and Home Center
1:16-cv-05286
E.D.N.YSep 14, 2017Background
- Trustees of Local 522 Pension and Welfare Funds sued Bayway Lumber & Home Center and moved for default judgment; Bayway did not appear.
- Magistrate Judge Orenstein conducted a damages inquest, requested supplemental submissions, and recommended granting default judgment with specified damages.
- Trustees sought attorney’s fees based on 31 billed hours (supplemental submission); initial request had been 12.5 hours.
- Magistrate reduced the 31 hours by 30%, finding the additional hours unexplained and excessive compared to comparable ERISA default cases, and noted billing practices (15‑minute increments; attorneys performing paralegal work).
- Trustees objected only to the 30% reduction; the District Court reviewed the R&R de novo as to the objection and adopted the R&R in full.
- Final judgment entered for the Trustees against Bayway for $88,192.87 (breakdown included unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate erred by reducing attorneys' billable hours by 30% | Additional 18.5 hours were justified by post‑hearing work answering the magistrate’s questions and supported by billing slips | No opposing submissions (default) | Court upheld the 30% reduction as reasonable and within the magistrate’s discretion; adopted R&R |
| Whether default judgment and award of damages should be entered | Trustees sought default judgment and detailed damages and fees | Bayway did not appear/contest | Court entered default judgment for $88,192.87 and directed entry of judgment and notice to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (standards for district court review of magistrate judge reports and recommendations)
- Clarke v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146 (2d Cir. 1992) (courts may use experience to assess reasonableness of fee requests)
- Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (procedural posture on R&R objections and review)
- Libbey v. Vill. of Atl. Beach, 982 F. Supp. 2d 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (reiterated-argument objections reviewed for clear error)
- Morritt v. Stryker Corp., 973 F. Supp. 2d 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (portions of R&R with no objections reviewed for clear error)