Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 30, 2021

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Full caption

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc.

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:18-cv-04111
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Manny P. Concrete, Judge Nathan awarded $42,682.87 plus post-judgment interest.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs received an award of $42,682.87 in attorneys’ fees and costs and post-judgment interest; the opinion directs entry of judgment against Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc. and closes the case.

What happened

In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Manny P. Concrete Company, Inc., the plaintiffs asked for attorneys’ fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full, granting $42,682.87 in attorneys’ fees and costs and granting post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.

Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered judgment entered and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:18-cv-04111
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Mar. 30, 2021

Background

The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s January 28, 2021 Report and Recommendation. The recommendation advised granting the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $42,682.87 and granting their request for post-judgment interest.

Review of the Recommendation

The court stated that, when reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommendation, it may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation. Because no timely objections were filed and the objection deadline had passed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. Clear error means an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $42,682.87 and granted the plaintiffs’ request for post-judgment interest, with interest accruing at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in accordance with the earlier judgment and the order and to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.