Analogic Corporation et al v. Marquis Clearance Services, Ltd.
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Ordered by Senior Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr on 9/2/2011. (Siegfried, Evan) (Main Document 16 replaced on 9/7/2011) (Marziliano, August). Modified on 9/7/2011 to attach corrected ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Marziliano, August). (Main Document 16 replaced on 9/7/2011) (Marziliano, August). Modified on 9/7/2011 to replace another corrected copy (Marziliano, August).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
ANALOGIC CORPORATION and
BK MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiffs
10-CV-3801 (SJ)
v.
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECCOMENDATION
MARQUIS CLEARANCE SERVICES, LTD,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------X
A P P E A R A N C E S:
LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD D’ORAZIO, P.C.
100 Lafayette Street
Suite 601
New York, NY 10013-440
By:
Bernard D’Orazio
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:
On August 08, 2010, Analogic Corp. (“Analogic”) and BK Medical
Systems (“BK”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant
Marquis Clearance Services, Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Marquis”).
Analogic
manufactures specialized diagnostic ultrasound systems through its subsidiary BK,
and previously retained Marquis to act as custom broker for its imports. Plaintiffs
now seek damages in connection with Marquis’ fraudulent billing of Plaintiffs for
custom duties Marquis never actually paid to U.S. Customs. On November 22,
2010, this Court referred Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment to Magistrate
Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), on whether the motion should be granted and, if
necessary, appropriate relief. On June 06, 2011, Magistrate Carter issued an R&R
recommending that the default motion be granted and that Plaintiffs be awarded
damages in the amount of $1,188,886.97 plus interest at the rate of nine percent
per annum commencing on February 19, 2010.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine
certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed
findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days of service of the recommendation, any party
may file written objections to the magistrate’s report. See id. Upon de novo
review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district
court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the
right to appeal this Court’s Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sect’y of
Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989).
2
In this case, Marquis did not file any objections to the R&R despite
expiration of the deadline for so filing.
However, the individual owner and
principal of Marquis, Gregory Manuelian (“Manuelian”), who is currently serving
a 24-month term of imprisonment following his indictment in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts in connection to this customs fraud,
filed a pro se objection to the R&R. The Second Circuit has long required that
corporations appear through licensed attorneys and may not appear pro se. Jones
v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d. Cir. 1983). This
Court, accordingly, need not consider Manuellian’s improper objection to the
R&R.
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court adopts and
affirms Magistrate Carter’s recommendations. Plaintiff’s default judgment motion
is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded damages in the sum of
$1,188,886.97. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff in
this amount.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 02, 2011
Brooklyn, New York
____________/s/___________________
Sterling Johnson, Jr., Senior, U.S.D.J.
3
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?