Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. Active Care Medical Supply Corp. et al
ORDER ADOPTING 181 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 162 Notice of MOTION for Default Judgment Against Defendant Complete Equipment, Inc. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Complete. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 11/16/2015. C/M to defendant Complete Equipment, Inc. (Barrett, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y
* NOV 162015 *
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
-against1 2-CV-5632 (SLT)(JO)
ACTIVE CARE MEDICAL SUPPLY
CORP., et al.,
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
In November 2012, plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO
Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Company
(collectively "GEICO"), commenced this action against various defendants including Complete
Equipment, Inc. ("Complete"), alleging a fraudulent scheme involving reimbursement claims for
durable medical equipment in violation of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance
Reparations Act (N.Y. Ins. Law § § 5101 et seq.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (11
N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 65 et seq.), also known as the New York No-Fault Laws. (Complaint, Doc. No.
1 5 November 15, 2012.) Despite being duly served with the Complaint, Complete failed to
answer, and the Clerk entered a certificate of default on December 14, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 20, 34.)
GEICO then moved for a default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) against Complete
on June 11, 2014. (Doc. No. 162.)
In an endorsed order dated November 26, 2014, this Court referred the motion to
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. No. 175.)
On July 30, 2015, Judge Orenstein issued his R&R, recommending that the Court enter a default
judgment against Complete and issue a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs are not obligated
to pay outstanding claims submitted by Complete to GEICO pursuant to the fraudulent scheme.
(R&R, Doc. No. 181, at 8.) The R&R specifically advised Complete that failure to file written
objections designating particular issues to be reviewed by August 17, 2015, "waives the right to
appeal the district court's order."(Id., at 8-9.)
The R&R also ordered GEICO to serve a copy of the R&R upon Complete by certified
mail and to file proof of service with the Court. (Id., at 8.) On July 31, 2015, plaintiff's counsel
filed an affidavit of service, representing that the R&R had been served on Complete via certified
mail addressed to Complete at two Brooklyn addresses. (Doc. No. 182.) On August 19, 2015,
plaintiffs counsel informed the Court that one of the service copies was returned as
undeliverable. (Doc. No. 183.) The deadline to object has passed and without any activity by
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many
courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of
Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The
Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
For the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Report and Recommendation
dated July 30, 2015, is adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a default
judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Complete.
/s/ Sandra L. Townes
SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Dated: )'14ry 4-.L'1 /(,2015
Brooklyn, New York
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?