The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sifton, Senior Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Company brings this action against defaulting defendants Liberty Medical Imaging Associates, P.C. d/b/a Richmond Hill Imaging ("Liberty"); OMF Medical Imaging, P.C. ("OMF"), and its management corporation TOL Management Co. ("TOL") (collectively, the "OMF Defendants"); Queens Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. ("Queens"), its management corporation BJ Management LLC ("BJ"), and BJ's owner Bernard Joseph ("Joseph") (collectively, the "Queens Defendants"); Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. ("Ocean"); Big Apple Medical Diagnostics, P.C. ("Big Apple"), its management corporation M & R Management of New York ("M&R"), and M&R's owner Vyacheslav Sadykov, also known as "Steve Sadykov" ("Sadykov") (collectively, the "Big Apple Defendants"); and Metro Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. ("Metro").*fn1 Plaintiff asserts claims of common law fraud and unjust enrichment, seeking compensatory damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
On March 15, 2009, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") disposing of plaintiff's claims against the defaulting defendants. Presently before this Court are plaintiff's objections to the March 15, 2009 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, I adopt in part and modify in part the Report and Recommendation.
The factual background of this case is recited in Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff has made no objection to that portion of the Report. What follows is a relevant procedural history of this matter.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint herein on June 22, 2007. Several defendants answered, but many did not. Plaintiff thereafter entered into settlement agreements with each defendant who appeared in the matter, as well as with two which originally defaulted. On August 30, 2007, and May 19, 2008, the Clerk of this Court noted the default of the remaining defendants pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff submitted its motions for default judgment on October 10, 2008; they were thereafter filed on the docket under seal on October 20, 2008, on the ground that they reflect prior confidential settlements with co-defendants. After holding an evidentiary hearing, during which plaintiff explicitly withdrew its request for injunctive relief, Magistrate Judge Orenstein filed a Report and Recommendation disposing of plaintiff's claims remaining on March 19, 2009. The Report recommended that I find the remaining defendants liable on plaintiff's common law fraud claims and claims for unjust enrichment, and included specific recommendations as to the amount of compensatory damages and interest to which plaintiff is entitled from each defendant. In addition, the Report recommended that I decline to award plaintiff punitive damages and that I deny plaintiff's request for declaratory relief.
On March 30, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the portion of the Report and Recommendation which concluded that I should not grant declaratory relief to plaintiff.
I. Standard for Consideration of Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that when ruling on objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, which is dispositive of a case,
[t]he district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made... [and] may also receive further evidence"); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the district court's review of a Magistrate Judge's recommendation is de novo and that the district judge may consider new evidence). Accordingly, I review the ...