Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Abramov et al

Filing 334

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. I have carefully reviewed Judge Bulsara's thoughtful and cogent R&R, and find no error. Accordingly, I adopt the R&R in its entirety. The plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to renewal. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 3/13/2019. (Greene, Donna)

f\i ed
l
IN CLERK'S OFFICE

US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.V,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

R 13 2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
■X

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al..

BROOKLYN OFFICE

Plaintiffs,

- against-

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

l;16-cv-I465 (AMD) (SJB)
ABRAMOV, etai,
Defendants.
-X

ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs commenced this civil action alleging violations of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, § 1962(c), and
§ 1964(c), and New York common law fraud and unjust enrichmenL (ECF No. 1.) The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 9, 2016, maintaining the same causes of action and

adding additional defendants. (ECF No. 5.) 25 of the 88 named defendants did not appear in the
action, and the Clerk of Court entered a default against them. (ECF Nos. 187-193, 195-201, 209213, 294-296, 307-310.) The 63 remaining defendants settled with the plaintiff. (See ECF
No. 322 at 4.)

On May 22, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for a default judgment against the 25 defendants
who did not appear in the action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and Local
Rule 55.2. (ECF No. 322-3.) Ireferred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sanket Bulsara for a
Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). On February 21, 2019, Judge Bulsara issued a thorough

and well-reasoned R&R, recommending thatIdeny the plaintiffs' motion because the plaintiffs

did not comply with the service requirements of Local Rule 55.2. (ECF No. 333.) No objections
have been filed to the R&R,and the time for doing so has passed. {Id.)
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)(1). 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 ofthe record." Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund
L.P., 823 F.Supp.2d 161, 163(E.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted).
I have carefully reviewed Judge Bulsara's thoughtful and cogent R&R,and find no error.
Accordingly, I adopt the R&R in its entirety. The plaintiffs' motion is denied without prejudice
to renewal.
SO ORDERED.

s/Ann M. Donnelly
Ann M. Donnelly
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 13,2019