Yung v. Trump

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- On February 28, 2014, the Hon. Viktor V. Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") as to defendant's motion for damages and pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to fil e a sur-reply. Plaintiff timely objected and defendant opposed. For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, and, upon due consideration, plaintiff's objections are overruled and the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Accordi ngly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied; (2) defendant's motion for damages is granted; (3) defendant is awarded $8,000.00 per infringing domain name for a total judgment against plaintiff of $32,000.00; and plaintiff is ORDERED to transfer his interest in the domain names trumpmumbai.com, trumpindia.com, trumpbeijing.com, and trumpabudhabi.com to defendant within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Defendant is directed to serve a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order on pro se plaintiff within five days of the date of this Order and immediately thereafter file proof of such service with the Court via ECF. This case was previously ordered closed by Court Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/26/2014. (Irizarry, Dora)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- x J. TAIKWOK YUNG d/b/a WEB-ADVISO, : pro se, : : Plaintiff, : : -against: : DONALD J. TRUMP, : : Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------- x SUMMARY ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11-CV-1413 (DLI)(VVP) DORA L. IRIZARRY, U.S. District Judge: On February 28, 2013, this Court granted summary judgment against the pro se plaintiffcounterclaim defendant J. Taiwok Yung d/b/a Web-Adviso (“Plaintiff”), concluding that Plaintiff had violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), through his ownership of four domain names that intentionally exploited the trademarked surname of defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Donald J. Trump (“Defendant”). (See Opinion & Order, Dkt. Entry No. 56.) Defendant then moved for statutory damages (see Defendant’s Motion for Damages, Dkt. Entry No. 58), which this Court referred to the Honorable Viktor V. Pohorelsky, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Amid briefing on that motion, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply brief. (See Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave, Dkt. Entry No. 73.) On February 28, 2014, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a R&R, which recommended: (1) denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply brief; and (2) granting Defendant’s Motion for Damages; (3) awarding Defendant $8,000 per infringing domain name, for a total judgment of $32,000; and (4) ordering Plaintiff to transfer his interest in the domain names trumpmumbai.com, trumpindia.com, trumpbeijing.com, and trumpabudhabi.com to the Defendant. (See R&R, Dkt. Entry No. 75.) On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (See Plaintiff’s Objections (“Obj.”), Dkt. Entry No. 77.) For the reasons set forth below, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. DISCUSSION Where a party objects to an R & R, a district judge must make a de novo determination with respect to those portions of the R & R to which the party objects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F. 3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If, however, a party makes conclusory or general objections, or attempts to relitigate the party’s original arguments, the court will review the R & R for clear error. Robinson v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 2012 WL 123263, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2012) (quoting Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). The district court may then “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections are nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the issues he briefed during summary judgment and are void of any arguments as to why the recommendations contained in the R&R should be rejected or modified. The Court has reviewed the R&R’s wellreasoned and detailed analysis for clear error and has found none. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety. CONCLUSION Upon due consideration, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief is denied. Defendant is awarded $8,000 per infringing domain name, for a total judgment of $32,000. Plaintiff is ordered to transfer his interest in the domain names trumpmumbai.com, trumpindia.com, trumpbeijing.com, and trumpabudhabi.com 2 to Defendant. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York March 26, 2014 /s/ DORA L. IRIZARRY United States District Judge 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?