Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Mirvis et al

Filing 696

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, and finding no clear error in the 691 Report & Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Peggy Kuo, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety and grants Plaintiffs' 621 motion to enforce judgment, as recommended by Judge Kuo. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/20/2020. (Marks, Miriam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
08-CV-4405 (PKC) (PK)

- against MARK MIRVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Deerbrook Insurance
Company, Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, and Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance
Company (“Plaintiffs”) brought this action on October 30, 2008, alleging violations of, inter alia,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962(c)–(d), 1964(c),
and New York common law, in connection with Defendants’ involvement in an extensive crimina l
organization.

On May 5, 2015, default judgment was entered for Plaintiffs in the amount of

$45,657,401.01, for which the defaulting Defendants were adjudged jointly and severally liable.
(Dkt. 303.) On February 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the judgment as to judgment
debtor Michael Bezenyan. (Dkt. 621.) This motion was referred to the Honorable Peggy Kuo,
United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Judge Kuo recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion
to enforce judgment. (R&R, Dkt. 691, at ECF 1 1, 10.)

Citations refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing system and
not the document’s internal pagination.
1

1

The R&R notified Defendants of their right to file written objections to the R&R, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). (Id. at 10–11.) A copy of
the R&R was served on Defendant Bezenyan on February 28, 2020. (See Affidavit of Service for
R&R, Dkt. 693.) The statutory period for filing objections has expired, and no objections to Judge
Kuo’s R&R have been filed.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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). Where no party objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the
district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis
v. N. Am. Globex Fund L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions relating to Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce
judgment, as well as Judge Kuo’s well-reasoned and thorough R&R. Finding no clear error in
Judge Kuo’s decision, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety, and grants Plaintiffs’ motion to
enforce judgment, as recommended by Judge Kuo. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: March 20, 2020
Brooklyn, New York

2