Axginc Corporation v. Plaza Automall, Ltd.

Filing 110

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: adopting 109 SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in Judge Scanlon's 109 SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, I deny plaintiff's motion, but I grant p laintiff leave to renew its motion within fifteen (15) days, on or before April 1, 2021. I stay vacatur of the restraining notices served against defendant and respondents until either (1) plaintiff's time to renew its motion has expired, in the event that plaintiff does not renew, or (2) plaintiff's renewed motion is decided, in the event that plaintiff does renew. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 3/17/2021. (Karr, Jacob)

Case 1:14-cv-04648-ARR-VMS Document 110 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6400

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AXGINC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
— against —
PLAZA AUTOMALL, LTD.,

14-CV-4648 (ARR) (VMS)
Opinion & Order
Not for electronic or print
publication

Defendant.
ROSS, United States District Judge:
This Court has received the sua sponte Report and Recommendations, dated March 2, 2021,
from the Honorable Vera M. Scanlon, United States Magistrate Judge, regarding plaintiff’s motion
for an order awarding money judgment for and turnover of funds that defendant and judgment
debtor, Plaza Automall, Ltd., allegedly fraudulently conveyed to respondents, John Rosatti, Bay
Ridge Hyundai, Ltd., Playa Motors of Brooklyn d/b/a Plaza Auto Mall and d/b/a Plaza Honda,
Plaza Oldsmobile, Ltd. d/b/a Plaza Auto Mall and d/b/a Playa Toyota, Plaza Hyundai, Ltd. d/b/a
Plaza Auto Mall, and Crystal Bay Imports, Ltd. d/b/a Plaza Auto Maill and d/b/a Acura of
Brooklyn.
The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA) (LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d,
472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). But where no timely objections have been filed,
“the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley
v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH) (LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186,

Case 1:14-cv-04648-ARR-VMS Document 110 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6401

189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). No objections have been filed and, having reviewed the record, I find no
clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendations in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, I find that the court has personal jurisdiction over respondents and that
plaintiff may bring its turnover motion against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). However, for
the reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendations, I deny plaintiff’s motion, but I grant
plaintiff leave to renew its motion within fifteen (15) days. Further, I stay vacatur of the restraining
notices served against defendant and respondents until either (1) plaintiff’s time to renew its motion
has expired, in the event that plaintiff does not renew, or (2) plaintiff’s renewed motion is decided,
in the event that plaintiff does renew.
SO ORDERED.

_______/s/________________
Allyne R. Ross
United States District Judge
Dated:

March 17, 2021
Brooklyn, New York

2