Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Berkshire Settlements, Inc., A Georgia Corporation, and Church Street v. Alexander Ashkenazi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


October 16, 2012

BERKSHIRE SETTLEMENTS, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, AND CHURCH STREET NOMINEES LTD., AN ISLE OF MAN CORPORATION, AND ASSURED FUND, A CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ALEXANDER ASHKENAZI, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE FOR HALPERT ALEXANDER TRUST, A NEW YORK TRUST, MALI HALPERT, AND INDIVIDUAL, JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE LIFE SETTLEMENTS, LLC, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, GLOBAL LIFE SETTLEMENTS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND JOEL ECKSTEIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frederic Block Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appearances: For the Plaintiffs: CHARLES P. RANDALL, ESQ. 1200 North Federal Highway, #209 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

On August 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that a default judgment be entered against defendant Alexander Ashkenazi in the amount of $98,286.12. The R&R recited that "[a]ny objections . . . must be filed no later than September 12,2012," and advised that "[f]ailure to file objections within this period . . . waives the right to appeal the district court's order." R&R at 9.

The R&R was served on Ashkenazi at his last known address. To date, no objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object, however, and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).

The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Judge Frederic Block

20121016

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.