Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, UFCW Local 1-D Pension Fund v. Sherry-Lehmann, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WINE, LIQUOR & DISTILLERY WORKERS’ UNION, UFCW LOCAL 1-D PENSION FUND, Civil Action No: 1:24-cv-04945-LGS Plaintiff, v. SHERRY-LEHMANN, INC., D/B/A SHERRY-LEHMANN WINE & DEFAULT JUDGMENT SPIRITS, Defendant.

WHEREAS, the Clerk of Court having noted the default of Defendant Sherry-Lehmann, Inc. (“Defendant”), and based upon the record in this action, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law and accompanying Exhibits thereto, the Affidavit of Zachary F. Ramsfelder, Esq., and the and Defendant having failed to appear at the show-cause applicable law, it is hereby hearing on October 9, 2024, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant be held liable to Plaintiff Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers’ Union, UFCW Local 1-D Pension Fund, in the total amount of $1,216,749.14, plus per diem interest at the rate of $477.34 from September 4, 2024 until the an amount to be determined by Magistrate date on which judgment is entered, as follows: Judge Sarah Netburn in a damages inquest.

1. $954,677 in withdrawal liability; 2. $42,960.46 in interest thereon; 3. $190,935.40 in liquidated damages; 4. $26,652.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees; and 5. $1,523.78 in costs.

Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 18.

IT IS SO ORDERD.

October 10 / / .

Dated: , 2024 New York, New York LoRNa G. S CHOPIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE defendant who defaults thereby admits all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in the but “a district court need not agree that the alleged facts constitute a valid cause of action.” of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011). “[A] district court is required to whether the plaintiffs allegations establish the defendant’s liability as a matter of law.” /d. jurisdiction is proper, as Plaintiff brings its claim under federal law. Personal jurisdiction is also as the Complaint alleges that Defendant is a New York corporation that has maintained its principal of business in New York State.

Complaint adequately alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to damages under ERISA. To state a claim for liability under ERISA, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant (1) was required to contribute to multi-employer plan; (2) withdrew from that plan; (3) was given proper demands for withdrawal liability (4) failed to make those payments; and (5) never sought to challenge the amount of withdrawal iability through the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Demopoulous v. Sweet Clover Farms Inc., 17 Civ. 2019 WL 13470576, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2019). The Complaint alleges that Defendant was bound by a of collective bargaining agreements with Plaintiff and that part of those agreements included to a fund within the meaning of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §1002(3). The Complaint alleges that withdrew from that plan on February 1, 2023, when it ceased operations. The Complaint also that Defendant was provided proper demands for withdrawal liability payments and that Defendant has to make those payments. The Complaint does not allege that Defendant has ever sought to challenge amount of withdrawal liability through arbitration. judgment is granted on Plaintiff's damages claim.