From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bank of China v. Sub-Zero, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 9, 2005
No. 02 Civ. 4457 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 9, 2005)

Opinion

No. 02 Civ. 4457 (RMB) (AJP).

June 9, 2005


DECISION AND ORDER


I. Background

On or about May 16, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, to whom this default proceeding had been referred, issued a report and recommendation ("Report") recommending that the Bank of China ("Plaintiff") be awarded damages against Sub-Zero, Inc., Crossroad Footwear, Inc., T.R.B. Systems (China), Inc., Sino-North America (U.S.A.) Co., Inc., and Huaken International Trading, Inc. ("Defendants"), jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,204,704.40 plus $839.13 per day in pre-judgment interest from April 19, 2005 through the date of entry of this decision and order. Report at 2.

The Report advised that "the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Report at 7. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have submitted objections.

II. Standard of Review

The Court may adopt those portions of a Magistrate's report to which no objections have been made and which are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Santana v. Kuhlman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 154, 157-158 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Gracia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989); DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

III. Analysis

Having conducted a review of the record herein, including the Report, and applicable legal authorities, the Court finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous and is, in fact, in conformity with the law in all respects. See Schwartz-Liebman Textiles v. Last Exit Corp., 815 F. Supp. 106, 107 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

IV. Order

For the reasons stated herein and therein, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,204,704.48 plus $839.13 per day in pre-judgment interest from April 19, 2005 through the date of entry of this decision and order and to close this case.

The Magistrate's damages computation was (inadvertently) short by eight cents.


Summaries of

Bank of China v. Sub-Zero, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 9, 2005
No. 02 Civ. 4457 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 9, 2005)
Case details for

Bank of China v. Sub-Zero, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BANK OF CHINA, Plaintiff, v. SUB-ZERO, INC., SINO-NORTH AMERICA (U.S.A.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jun 9, 2005

Citations

No. 02 Civ. 4457 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 9, 2005)