Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC v. Smith et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Pollak's R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs motions are denied, with the exception that plaintiffs motion to substitute John Smith for John Doe No. 1 and dismiss the claims against the remaining John Does is granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 7/11/2014. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------x
ASSETS RECOVERY CENTER
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

u.s.lit~~e

U.S. DfSTRl<;XCOURJr.D.N.Y.

* * ::JUL 15 2014 *
8i~O(JKLYi.: C' 1°F\CE

NOT~9~'{fl\:9.IJ'f~
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-0253 (CBA)

-againstCOURTNEY SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------x

AMON, Chief United States District Judge.

On January 16, 2013, plaintiff Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC commenced
this foreclosure action against defendants Courtney Smith, Sara Safiullah, the New York City
Parking Violations Bureau, the New York City Environmental Control Board, the New York
City Transit Adjudication Bureau, and various John Does Nos. 1 through 12, seeking to foreclose
on a mortgage encumbering a property owned by defendants Smith and Safiullah. (Comp!. iii! 1,
3, Docket Entry ("D.E.") # I.) Defendants Smith and Safiullah filed an answer on February 25,
2013 asserting various affirmative defenses and counterclaims. (D.E. # 10.) On September 23,
2013, plaintiff moved for an order: (I) granting summary judgment in its favor pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a); (2) striking, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(f), the affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserted by defendants Smith and Safiullah; (3)
substituting John Smith in place of John Doe No. 1 in the caption, and dismissing the claims
against John Does Nos. 2 through 12 from the action; and (4) entering a default against the nonappearing defendants New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Environmental
Control Board, and New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau. (D.E. # 24.)

The Court subsequently referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak for
report and recommendation. On March 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Pollak issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court (I) deny plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment; (2) deny plaintiffs motion to strike defendants' affirmative defenses and
counterclaims; (3) grant plaintiffs motion to substitute John Smith for John Doe No. 1 and
dismiss the claims against the remaining John Does; and (4) deny plaintiff's motion to enter
default against the non-appearing defendants.
No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding
whether to adopt an R&R, a district court "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)(l). To accept
those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made, "a 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) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, hereby adopts
Magistrate Judge Pollak's R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs motions are
denied, with the exception that plaintiff's motion to substitute John Smith for John Doe No. 1
and dismiss the claims against the remaining John Does is granted.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July /l ,2014

s/Carol Bagley Amon
/carol Baglbf Amq{i)
Chief United States District Judge