Northern Metropolitan Foundation For Healthcare, Inc. et al v. RSUI Indemnity Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
NORTHERN METROPOLITAN FOUNDATION FOR
HEALTHCARE, INC. ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
RSUI INDEMNITY CO.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
20-CV-2224 (EK)(VMS)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
The Court has received Chief Magistrate Judge
Scanlon’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated August 15, 2025.
ECF No. 58. 	Judge Scanlon recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend the judgment be granted in part and denied in part, “such
that Plaintiffs be awarded $647,319.79 in attorneys’ fees and
$233,386.45 in pre-judgment interest thereon.” 	Id. at 9.
Defendant filed no objections, and the time to do so has
expired. 	While Plaintiffs did “not object to the substance of”
the R&R, they recently raised the new argument that pre-judgment
interest should be calculated through the date on which the
amended judgment issues, rather than that of the initial
judgment. 	ECF No. 59, at 3.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an
R&R to which a party has specifically objected. 	28 U.S.C.
Case 1:20-cv-02224-EK-VMS Document 60 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v.
Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F. Supp. 2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y.
2013), aff’d, 578 F. App’x 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (“A proper
objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the
R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis
for this assertion.”) 	However, the court may also “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge” at its
discretion. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
We adopt the R&R in substantial part but agree that
Plaintiffs should be awarded pre-judgment interest through the
date on which the amended judgment issues, given the omission of
a damages calculation from the initial judgment. 	See
Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D'Urso, 371 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir.
2004).
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to issue an amended judgment that awards Plaintiffs
$647,319.79 in attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment interest
thereon, calculated at a rate of 9% per year from the date on
which Plaintiffs paid a given invoice — as identified in the
schedule provided at ECF No. 57-2 — to the date of the amended
judgment. 	The Clerk should exclude all invoices paid prior to
Case 1:20-cv-02224-EK-VMS Document 60 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

May 11, 2018, as well as $6,438.50 of the $7,417.40 paid on May
11, 2018, from the interest calculation. 	See id.; R&R 8 n.4.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 3, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:20-cv-02224-EK-VMS Document 60 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>