Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A v. Premier Restoration…
Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A v. Premier Restoration Technologies
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-09172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A v. Premier Restoration Technologies, Judge Caproni granted default judgment for $1,387,104 plus interest.
The Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A received a default judgment against Premier Restoration Technologies for $1,387,104.00 plus $201,415.90 in interest.
What happened
Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A v. Premier Restoration Technologies concerned the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment against Premier Restoration Technologies.
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The opinion does not provide the underlying facts or explain the legal claims.
Judge Valerie Caproni’s court granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and entered judgment for $1,387,104, plus $201,415.90 in interest accrued through entry of judgment. The court also stated that the defendant’s failure to object to the report and recommendation waived further appellate review.
The detailed version
- Board of Trustees of the United Furniture Pension Fund A v. Premier Restoration… · No. 1:21-cv-09172
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 12, 2022
Ruling
The court adopted in full a report and recommendation concerning the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. A default judgment is a judgment entered when a party does not defend against the case or otherwise fails to participate as required. The court granted the motion.
Judgment Amount
The court entered judgment against Premier Restoration Technologies for $1,387,104.00. It also awarded interest accruing at $380.03 per day from March 1, 2021, through the date judgment was entered, totaling $201,415.90.
Appellate Review
The court stated that the report and recommendation had given the parties adequate warning about the consequences of failing to object. Because no objection was filed, the court held that further appellate review of the magistrate judge’s decision was waived.
The opinion does not state the underlying claims or facts supporting the judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.