Opinion
10 Civ. 118 (RMB) (RLE).
November 2, 2010
ORDER
I. Background
On May 17, 2010, this Court entered a default judgment ("Judgment") following the failure of Samyoung America, Inc. ("Defendant") to answer QT Trading, LP's ("Plaintiff's") complaint, dated January 7, 2010, or otherwise to appear in this case. (See Judgment at 1.) The Court referred the issue of damages to United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Ellis for determination. (See Judgment at 2.) On June 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted affidavits in support of damages and Defendant again failed to respond. (See Report and Recommendation, dated Oct. 20, 2010, at 1.) On October 20, 2010, Judge Ellis issued a thorough report and recommendation ("Report"), recommending, among other things, that Plaintiff be awarded $1,011,796.04 in damages. (See Report at 4.)
The Report advised that, "pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed.R.Civ.P."), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition to file written objections" and "[f]ailure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal . . ." (Report at 5); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145, 155 (1985). To date, neither party has filed objections.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report's recommendations in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
See Thomas 474 U.S. at 14928 U.S.C. § 636see also72Grassia v. Scully892 F.2d 1619
IV. Analysis
The facts and procedural history as set forth in the Report are incorporated herein by reference unless otherwise noted. Having conducted a review of the Report and applicable legal authorities, the Court finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous. See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Judge Ellis concluded that Defendant is liable for the full amount of damages established by Plaintiff because, among other reasons, Defendant "has failed to assert any affirmative defenses, . . . and has failed to offer any evidence regarding the attribution of damages among the various parties." (Report at 4); see Binladen BSB Landscaping v. M.V. Nedloyd Rotterdam, et al., 759 F.2d 1006, 1009 (2d Cir. 1985); M. Golodetz Exp. Corp. v. S/S Lake Anja, 571 F.2d 1103, 1111-12 (2d Cir. 1985) ("the total absence of evidence to support an apportionment of damages requires . . . the carrier [defendant to] bear the entire loss").
Judge Ellis also concluded that Plaintiff's alleged damages "appear to be in order," because, among other reasons, Defendant "has not submitted any evidence to challenge the numbers submitted by [Plaintiff]." (Report at 5); see Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974) ("while a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof"); Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989).
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth therein and herein, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for $1,011,796.04 in damages. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close this case.
Dated: November 2, 2010
New York, New York