Opinion
21 Civ. 2098 (LGS)
10-04-2022
VENUS BY MARIA TASH, INC., Plaintiff, v. PRINATRIAM LTD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge
WHEREAS, by the Default Judgment Order dated May 13, 2022, Plaintiff was granted judgment against all Defendants (Dkt. No. 57). Plaintiff's request for damages was then referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for a post-default-judgment inquest (Dkt. No. 59);
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2022, Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that Plaintiff be awarded (1) damages in the amount of $253,079.43, (2) attorneys' fees in the amount of $97,136.00, (3) costs in the amount of $437.44 and (4) postjudgment interest at the statutory rate calculated from the date of entry of judgment of damages (Dkt. No. 70);
WHEREAS, as stated in the Report, the deadline for any objections was fourteen days from service of the Report;
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff filed a certificate of service stating that Defendants had been served with a copy of the Report on August 26, 2022 (Dkt. No. 71);
WHEREAS, no objections were timely filed;
WHEREAS, in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district judge “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). A district judge is required to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to” by any party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317, 340 (2d Cir. 2015). To invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations, a party's “objections must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal.” McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F.Supp.2d 542, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the court reviews the report and recommendation strictly for clear error.” Piligian v. Icahn Sch. of Med. at Mount Sinai, 490 F.Supp.3d 707, 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted);
WHEREAS, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record as to the recommendation to award damages, attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest to Plaintiff. It is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Report is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff is awarded (1) damages in the amount of $253,079.43, (2) attorneys' fees in the amount of $97,136.00, (3) costs in the amount of $437.44 and (4) post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, calculated from the date of entry of judgment of damages.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close the case.