Gomez v. Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp.
Alejandra Gomez, Valentina Gonzalez, Josh Winter, Morris Lowy, as Trustees of the United Production Workers Union Local 17-18 Welfare Fund v. Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-00193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Gomez v. Edison Lithograph: Judge Karas directed plaintiffs to explain interest calculations or revise their default-judgment submissions without ruling on the requested updated judgment.
The trustees of the United Production Workers Union Local 17-18 Welfare Fund must explain or revise their requested interest and attorney’s-fee calculations. Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp. remains subject to the earlier partial default judgment, while the requested updated monetary award was not decided in this order.
What happened
In Alejandra Gomez, Valentina Gonzalez, Josh Winter, and Morris Lowy, as trustees of the United Production Workers Union Local 17-18 Welfare Fund v. Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp., the court had already entered a partial default judgment after Edison failed to appear. That judgment required Edison to pay specified contributions and interest, comply with an audit, and provide books and records.
The trustees said Edison did not pay or cooperate with the audit. They asked for an updated default judgment totaling $321,417.09, including additional contributions, interest, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court questioned whether some interest had been calculated as compound interest even though the governing documents did not specify compound interest, and it found the requested $41,332.50 in attorney’s fees likely too high because the lawyers claimed 118.2 hours.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide the requested updated award in this order. He directed the trustees to explain their interest calculations and provide additional authority supporting the fee request, or revise and refile their submissions, by December 11, 2025.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp. · No. 7:24-cv-00193
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
The Clerk entered a certificate of default against Edison Lithograph and Printing Corp. on April 10, 2024. The trustees later moved for a default judgment. Edison did not appear at a June 26, 2025 telephonic conference, and the court then entered a partial default judgment.
The partial default judgment required Edison to pay specified unpaid contributions and interest, remit contributions that accumulated during the case, pay liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C), and produce books and records for an audit covering March 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022. It also allowed the trustees to seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The trustees represented that Edison failed to make payments or comply with the audit process.
Requested Updated Judgment
The trustees sought an updated default judgment totaling $321,417.09. Their request included amounts from the earlier partial default judgment, additional contributions found through the audit, interest, liquidated damages, $41,332.50 in attorney’s fees, and $1,911.94 in costs.
Interest
The court stated that the trustees’ materials were not entirely clear but appeared to assume that at least some interest was compounded. The collective bargaining agreement and other submitted documents required interest at 12% per year but did not state whether the interest was simple or compound. The court cited authority suggesting that simple interest may be appropriate when the governing documents do not specify compounding. It directed the trustees to explain their interest calculations.
Attorney’s Fees
The court explained that the usual starting point for a fee award is the “lodestar,” meaning a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. It found the requested hourly rates of $350 for each of the two attorneys reasonable in light of their experience, the results obtained, and comparable awards in employee-benefits cases.
The court nevertheless found the requested 118.2 hours substantially excessive for this employee-benefits default-judgment case. The trustees had provided detailed time records but had not cited comparable cases approving a similar number of hours or explained why that amount of time was reasonable here. The court therefore questioned the requested attorney’s-fee amount and directed the trustees to provide supplemental authority or revise the submission.
Disposition
The court did not grant or deny the requested updated default judgment in this order. Instead, it directed the trustees either to submit an explanation of the interest calculations and additional support for the requested fees or to revise and refile their default-judgment materials. The deadline was December 11, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.