Opinion
19 Civ. 1775 (PAE) (SN)
08-31-2021
OFF-WHITE LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALI JR., et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge
Currently pending is plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment against 39 defendants (the “Defaulting Defendants”), arising from these defendants' Lanham Act violations. The Court has earlier entered a default as to liability. Before the Court is the July 23, 2021 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Sarah Netbum, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court award $5.1 million in statutory damages under the Lanham Act. The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts this recommendation.
As identified by plaintiff, the Defaulting Defendants are: (1) AlvinCaraballo, (2) AndrewSobers, (3) bethanyastri, (4) BeverlyBush, (5) CurtisHoffer, (6) DavidOl 12, (7) DeborahTheberge, (8) DeniseGomez, (9) DennRamos, (10) drxft, (11) edward35, (12) EdwardLesper, (13) EvelynLeod, (14) GerySantiago, (15) HelenMason, (16) Jameirkle, (17) JasonCrew, (18) Jenkinskurt, (19) JonathonMcCoy, (20) KimBoykins, (21) kobajgenti, (22) Lori2D, (23) LuellaVincent, (24) Maria Ham, (25) Mark Osuna, (26) MiriamKinsey, (27) mmarkleyj, (28) Naremiseng, (29) optixal, (30) pimssims, (31) Scarlett P Hoang, (32) SuzanneMacdo, (33) TeresaReeves, (34) TeresaRichard, (35) Viktoria Thorbjomsen, (36) wandaxgigli, (37) WilliamSweet, (38) willup, and (39) ypowkq. See Dkt. 41.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g, Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Netbum's thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review, ” Report at 32, the parties' failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec 'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the award of $5.1 million in statutory damages under the Lanham Act according to the tiered structure proposed by Off-White and adopted by Judge Netburn: $100,000 from the 35 Defaulting Defendants who made between 1 and 93 sales of counterfeit Off-White Products; $200,000 from the three Defaulting Defendants who made between 121 and 228 sales of counterfeit Off-White Products; and $1 million from the one Defaulting Defendant who made 1, 731 sales of counterfeit Off-White Products. Off-White is also entitled to post-judgment interest on this judgment amount. Additionally, the Court adopts Judge Netbum's recommendation that Off-White's request for a post-judgment order freezing each Defaulting Defendants' assets and authorizing the transfer of those assets to Off-White be denied, but that Off-White be permitted to execute on and enforce the Court's judgment immediately.
The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decision to plaintiffs at the address on file, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.