Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2025

Alston v. 1699 New York Ave Parking LLC

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:23-cv-06740
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ErisaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alston v. 1699 New York Avenue Parking LLC, Judge Vargas entered a $19,555.49 ERISA judgment after adopting an unobjected-to damages recommendation.

Who this affects

The judgment affects Fred Alston, as trustee of The Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund and The Local 272 Welfare Fund, and 1699 New York Avenue Parking LLC. The defendant must pay $19,555.49 plus post-judgment interest.

What happened

In Alston v. 1699 New York Avenue Parking LLC, Fred Alston sued as trustee of two employee benefit plans, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The court had already entered default judgment against the defendant on liability and sent the issue of damages to a magistrate judge.

The magistrate judge recommended an award of $19,123.49. The defendant was served with that recommendation but filed no objections and did not request more time. The district court reviewed the recommendation and found no errors.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas adopted the recommendation in its entirety and ordered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $19,555.49, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The court also directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alston v. 1699 New York Ave Parking LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06740
Judge
Vargas
Date
May 1, 2025

Background

Fred Alston brought the action as a trustee of The Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund and The Local 272 Welfare Fund. The plaintiffs alleged that 1699 New York Avenue Parking LLC violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. On October 31, 2023, the court granted default judgment on liability. The court then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo to determine damages.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Figueredo recommended a total award of $19,123.49, plus post-judgment interest. The recommendation stated that, as of January 31, 2025, the damages included $3,168 in late-penalty interest under the collective bargaining agreement and another $3,168 under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C). It also provided for an additional $432 in pre-judgment interest for the period from February 1, 2025, through the date of judgment.

Objections and Review

The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. The docket showed that the defendant was served by mail at its last known address on February 5, 2025. The defendant filed no objections and did not request an extension. The court therefore concluded that the defendant waived its right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review of it.

Even without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation and found it thorough, well reasoned, comprehensive, and free of error. The court adopted it in its entirety.

Disposition

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ordered the clerk to enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $19,555.49, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The amount reflects the recommended $19,123.49 plus the additional $432 in pre-judgment interest. The court also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.