Opinion
Case No. 07-cv-02946 (FB) (VVP).
April 13, 2009
For the Plaintiff: JULIE COHEN LONSTEIN, ESQ. Lonstein Law Office, P.C., Ellenville, NY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 19, 2007, plaintiff J J Sports Productions, Inc. ("J J") filed suit against Sandra Castrillon ("Castrillon") and LA 43 Café Bar Corp. ("LA 43 Café"). J J's complaint alleged that defendants violated the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605(a), and 605(e)(4), by exhibiting without authorization a televised boxing match to which J J had the exclusive right of distribution. As a result of defendants' failure to answer or otherwise defend, see Docket Entry #5 (Clerk's Entry of Default), J J's motion for a default judgment was granted on March 21, 2008, and the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky for a determination of the relief to be awarded. See Docket Entry #6 (Memorandum and Order). On September 11, 2008, J J voluntarily dismissed all causes of action it had asserted against Castrillon, leaving LA 43 Café as the sole defendant. See Docket Entry #10 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).
On September 12, 2008, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R"), see Docket Entry #11, recommending that judgment be entered against LA 43 Café in the amount of $23,886.50, consisting of: (1) $22,500 in statutory damages, (2) $936.50 in attorney's fees, and (3) $450 in costs. The R R advised that" [a]ny objections . . . must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 10 days of receipt of this report," and that "[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court on reliance on this Report and Recommendation." R R at 6 (citations omitted). On September 17, 2008, plaintiffs served a copy of the R R on LA 43 Café. See Docket Entry #12 (Affidavit of Service). No objections were filed.
On November 19, 2008, J J submitted notice to the Court that it had settled the action with LA 43 Cafe; J J "specifically reserve[d] the right, in the event of any non-payment, to reopen and reinstate its claim[s] against [LA 43 Café]." See Docket Entry #13 (Notice of Settlement) at 1. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. However, on February 13, 2009, J J moved to reopen the case, indicating that LA 43 Café "ha[d] failed to comply with the settlement. . . ." Docket Entry #14 (Motion to Re-Open) at 2. The Court granted J J's motion, directed J J to re-serve the R R on LA 43 Café, and granted another 10 days for the filing of objections to the R R. See Unnumbered Docket Entry dated Feb. 17, 2009. On February 20, 2009, J J re-served the R R on LA 43 Café. See Docket Entry #15 (Certificate of Service). Once again, no objections were filed.
"[A] district court evaluating a magistrate judge's recommendation is permitted to adopt those portions of the recommendation to which no specific, written objection is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous." Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court finds no clear error (if any error) with the R R; accordingly, the Court adopts its recommendations without de novo review.