Von Rohr Equipment Corp. v. Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp. et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Following the evidentiary hearings, Judge Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on the record on May 17, 2017, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (May 17, 2017, R&R.) No party has objected to Judge Reyes's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l). (See also May 17, 2017, R&R ("Objections to this R&R must be filed with the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis by 5/31/2017.") Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Andrews v. LeClaire. 709 F. Supp. 2d 269,271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); La Torres v. Walker. 216 F. Supp. 2d 157,159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The co urt has reviewed the record of the hearings held before Judge Reyes and, finding no error, ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/9/2017. (Almonte, Giselle)

p/r=

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-X

VON ROHR EQUPMENT CORP.,
ORDER

Plaintiff,

17-CV-2913(NGG)
(RER)
-againstTANNER BOLT & NUT CORP.,JEFF
TANNENBAUM & BRIAN SCHRODER,
Defendants.
X

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS,United States District Judge.

On May 12,2017,Plaintiff Von Rohr Equipment Corp. filed this action seeking monetary

and injunctive relief against Defendants Tanner Bolt & Nut Corp.("Tanner"), Jeff Tannenbaum,

and Brian Schroder. (Compl.(Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff alleges that Tanner and Tannenbaum obtained
certain confidential business information from Schroder, who was formerly employed with

Plaintiff, and are using that information to achieve an unfair commercial advantage over
Plaintiff. (See, e.g.. id. 11.) The Complaint seeks, among other things, preliminary and

permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from using any of Plaintiffs confidential
information that is allegedly in their possession. (See id. at ECF pp.18-19.) Plaintiff also sought

a temporary restraining order("TRO")immediately enjoining Defendants from using the
confidential information. (See Unsigned Order to Show Cause(Dkt. 3).)

Following an ex parte hearing held on May 12,2017,the court granted Plaintiffs motion
for a TRO and ordered Defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be

issued. (Order to Show Cause(Dkt. 9); see also May 12, 2017, Min. Entry.) The court further
directed that hearings on the preliminary injunction would be held before Magistrate Judge
Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (See Order to Show Cause at 2).

Following the evidentiary hearings, Judge Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R")on the record on May 17, 2017, recommending that the court deny Plaintiffs motion

for a preliminary injunction. (May 17, 2017, R&R.) No party has objected to Judge Reyes's

R&R,and the time to do so has passed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l).^ (See also May 17, 2017,

R&R ("Objections to this R&R must be filed with the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis by

5/31/2017.").) Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear error.

Andrews v. LeClaire.

709 F. Supp. 2d 269,271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); La Torres v. Walker. 216 F. Supp. 2d 157,159
(S.D.N.Y. 2000);^28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court has reviewed the record ofthe hearings
held before Judge Reyes and,finding no error, ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

June ^,2017

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS

United States District Judge

' number ofcourts have held that motions for preliminary injunctions are dispositive within the meaning ofRule
A
72 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. See Mitchell v. Centurv 21 Rustic Realty. 233 F. Supp. 2d 418,430

(E.D.N.Y. 2002)(collecting cases) As a consequence, an R&R concerning a preliminary injunction is assessed
under Rule 72(b), requiring any sections ofthe R&R to which a party has properly objected to be reviewed for clear
error. Mitchell. 233 F. Supp. 2d at 430: cf. also Thurmond v. Bowman. 199 F. Supp. 3d 686,688(W.D.N.Y. 2016)
(applying de novo review to objected R&R concerning preliminary injunction). While the court follows these cases
in applying Rule 72(b)here, it notes that this determination is not necessary to deciding the present motion: no party
has objected to this R&R,and so review is based on the same "clear error" standard that would apply to a
nondispositive motion. Cf.. e.g.. Allen v. United Parcel Serv.. Inc.. 988 F. Supp. 2d 293,297(E.D.N.Y.2013)("For
a dispositive matter, the district court...reviews for clear error the parts ofthe R&R to which the parties do not
object. For a non-dispositive matter, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error."(iutemal citations omitted)).