FTC v. NBC, et al

Filing 1584

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1568 . ORDERED that Namer's 1558 motion to quash and for an accounting is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Namer's 1565 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the writs of ga rnishment that erroneously describe an initial November 8, 1991 judgment of $9,145,009.40 are AMENDED to reflect the correct November 8, 1991 judgment of $3,019,377.00. FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall submit an affidavit on or before 2/3/2014, setting forth the calculations, including, for example, any credits for payments made by Namer, used to compute the total balance of $12,199,760.57, which was submitted by the government on 12/12/2013. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/22/2014.(blg)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 89-1740 NATIONAL BUSINESS CONSULTANTS ET AL. SECTION I ORDER The Court, having considered the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation1 of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the objections2 by defendant-debtor, Robert Namer (“Namer”), which are hereby OVERRULED, approves the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. The Court additionally finds that the record would benefit from a formal correction of the harmless errors in some of the original writs of garnishment, as well as an affidavit relative to Namer’s total debt. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Namer’s motion3 to quash and for an accounting is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Namer’s motion4 for reconsideration is DENIED. 1 R. Doc. No. 1568. Namer objected to the captioning of the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s opinion as an “order,” rather than as findings and recommendations. R. Doc. No. 1574-1, at 2. Even subjecting the opinion to de novo review pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, the Court elects to adopt the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s opinion. See United States v. Lawrence, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1191-92 (D.S.D. 2008) (“Some FDCPA decisions rendered by magistrate judges, while not making reference to the authority for doing so, have seemingly been by final appealable orders, . . . while others have been on a report and recommendation basis . . . .”) (citing cases). 2 R. Doc. No. 1574; see also R. Doc. No. 1579. 3 R. Doc. No. 1558. 4 R. Doc. No. 1565. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the writs5 of garnishment that erroneously describe an initial November 8, 1991 judgment of $9,145,009.40 are AMENDED to reflect the correct November 8, 1991 judgment of $3,019,377.00.6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall submit an affidavit on or before Monday, February 3, 2014, setting forth the calculations, including, for example, any credits for payments made by Namer, used to compute the total balance of $12,199,760.57, which was submitted by the government on December 12, 2013.7 New Orleans, Louisiana, January 22, 2014. _____________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 E.g., R. Doc. Nos. 1502, 1505, 1509. R. Doc. No. 548. 7 See R. Doc. No. 1564, at 2. To be clear, the Court finds unpersuasive Namer’s arguments that this balance is incorrect. 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?