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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 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 FUND, JAMES KILKENNY, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ET AL., AS TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 20-CV-4765 CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL LOCAL 175 ANNUITY FUND, and JAMES KILKENNY, ET AL., AS TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL LOCAL 175 TRAINING FUND, Plaintiff, -against- MANCO ENTERPRISES, INC., MANETTA ENTERPRISES, INC., and RIMANI GROUP, INC., Defendant. Appearances: For the Plaintiffs: For Defendants Manco Enterprises Inc., and ELISE S. FELDMAN Manetta Enterprises, Inc.: Rothman Rocco LaRuffa LLP ANDES H. MARCUS 3 West Main Street, Suite 200 161 West 61st Street, 19th Floor Elmsford, New York 10523 New York, New York 10023 For Defendant Rimani Group, Inc.: AARON C. SCHLESINGER LAUREN RAYNER DAVIS Peckar & Abramson, P.C. 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs’ complaint sought delinquent benefit contributions and related relief under Sections 502(a)(3) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 (a)(3), 1145. See Compl., ECF No 1. After granting partial summary judgement, the Court entered a money judgement against the Defendants which granted Plaintiffs leave to apply for attorney’s fees and costs. ECF No. 75. On May 15, Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion and that fees and costs in the amount of $221,360.39 be awarded. ECF No. 76. Defendants were given 14 days to file objections, i.e., until May 29, 2025, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal both before the district court and appellate courts.” Id. 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 R&R’s face. Thus, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Court directs the Clerk to award Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $221,360.39, comprising $213,947.50 in attorney’s fees and $7,412.89 in costs. SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York September 2, 2025