The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF OHIO
LABORERS’ BENEFIT PROGRAMS,
Case No. 2:20-cv-4696
Plaintiffs, Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
v. Magistrate Judge Jolson
WILLIAMS FLAGGER LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is an action was initiated on September 9, 2020, for unpaid fringe benefit
contributions, statutory interest, and other damages under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Labor
Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. (Doc. 1). Defendant was served on September 15,
2020 (Doc. 4) and failed to plead or otherwise defend this action. Plaintiffs applied to the Clerk
for entry of default on October 15, 2020. (Doc. 5). The Clerk entered default pursuant to Federal
Rule Civil Procedure 55(a) on October 16, 2020. (Doc. 6). The Undersigned granted Plaintiffs’
Motion to Expedite Discovery on February 16, 2021. On September 16, 2021, when Plaintiffs had
failed to communicate with the court or to move for default judgment, the Undersigned ordered
Plaintiffs to show cause or move for default judgment. (Doc. 11). On September 30, 2021,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 12).
Upon review of the Motion and corresponding exhibits and affidavits, it is
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 12) be GRANTED and judgment be entered in
favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant as follows:
• $17,712.20 in unpaid fringe benefit contributions for the period March 2019 through
January 2020, liquidated damages, and interest through September 2021.
• $4,168.95 in attorneys’ fees plus interest from the time of judgment at the rate of 1% per
month, and the court costs of this action.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of this Report, file and serve on all parties’ written objections to those specific proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for
the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon
proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 1, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE