Restrepo v. Rosciti Communications, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On April 21, 2025, the petitioner, Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical
Industry (“JIB”), brought this action pursuant to § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and § 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, to confirm and enforce an arbitration award rendered
pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between JIB and the respondent, Rosciti
Communications, LLC. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 4.) The petitioner also seeks an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 4 at 5–8.) The respondent did not respond, and on May 28,
2025, the petitioner requested that the petition be deemed an unopposed motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 10.) On June 4, 2025, the Court directed the petitioner to serve a copy of
the order and file proof of service on ECF by June 6, 2025, and said that if the respondent did not
appear or otherwise respond by June 20, 2025, the Court would grant the petitioner’s request.
(ECF Order dated June 4, 2025.) The respondent did not appear or otherwise respond by the
Court’s deadline, and has still not appeared in the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
HUMBERTO RESTREPO, as Chairman of the
Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry,
Petitioner,
– against –
ROSCITI COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
25-CV-2203 (AMD) (SDE)
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
Case 1:25-cv-02203-AMD-SDE Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On August 7, 2025, the Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak,
and on August 29, 2025, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz. (See
ECF Orders dated Aug. 7 and Aug. 29, 2025.) On November 6, 2025, Judge Eichenholtz issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the petition in part. (ECF No.
13.) Judge Eichenholtz recommended that the Court uphold the arbitrator’s decision and confirm
the award. (Id. at 7–9.) Because the petitioner did not request pre-judgment interest separate
from confirmation of the award, Judge Eichenholtz recommended that the Court not award pre-
judgment interest. (Id. at 9.) Although the petitioner did not explicitly request post-judgment
interest, he sought interest on the principal amounts not paid to the employee benefit plans at
issue, and the arbitration award included those amounts. (Id. at 10.) Thus, Judge Eichenholtz
recommended that the Court grant post-judgment interest from the date of entry of judgment to
the date when judgment is satisfied, at the rate provide for by 28 U.S.C § 1961. (Id.) Judge
Eichenholtz also recommended that the Court award $1,735 in attorneys’ fees and $405 in costs.
(Id. at 10–15.)1
No party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation and the time for doing
so has passed.
A district court reviewing a report and recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). To accept a report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been
made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
1 Judge Eichenholtz concluded that the hourly rate for one of the petitioner’s lawyers was high given her
title and experience, and recommended $1,735 in attorney’s fees instead of the $2,682.75 that the
petitioner requested. (ECF No. 13 at 14.)
Case 1:25-cv-02203-AMD-SDE Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(citation omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Eichenholtz’s well-reasoned report
and recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and
recommendation in its entirety. The arbitration award is confirmed, and the petitioner is awarded
$72,720.04, post-judgment interest from the date of entry of judgment to the date when judgment
is satisfied at the rate provide for by 28 U.S.C § 1961, $1,735 in attorneys’ fees, and $405 in
costs.
SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 10, 2025
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Case 1:25-cv-02203-AMD-SDE Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>