Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors et ano v. Haltman, et al.

Filing 172

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Judge Tomlinson's R&R (Docket Entry 152) is ADOPTED in its entirety and the Haltman Defendants' motion to strike (Docket Entry 71) is DENIED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/13/2016. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------X
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED
CREDITORS,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-5475(JS)(ARL)

-againstLINDA HALTMAN et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------X
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen
Tomlinson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
this Court deny a discovery motion (Docket Entry 71) filed by
defendants Linda and Michael Haltman (the “Haltman Defendants”)
seeking to preclude Plaintiff from presenting certain damages
evidence at trial.

(R&R Docket Entry 152.)

For the following

reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Judge Tomlinson’s R&R in its
entirety.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
of Exeter Holding Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Arnold
Frank, Sondra Frank, Linda Haltman, Michael Haltman, Bruce Frank,
Larry Frank, and various others trusts listed in the Complaint
(“Defendants”).

Plaintiffs principally claim that Defendants

defrauded Exeter’s creditors by transferring funds from Exeter to

themselves, certain trusts, and other entities.

(Compl., Docket

Entry 3-9, at 1-3.)
On September 8, 2014, the Haltman Defendants moved for
an order pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence on a
motion or at a trial or hearing relating to the allegation that
funds of Exeter Holding, Ltd. were used to “pay personal expenses
of the Frank-Haltman clan.”

(Defs.’ Mot., Docket Entry 71, at 1.)

On April 7, 2015, the undersigned referred Plaintiff’s motion to
Judge Tomlinson for an R&R on whether the motion should be granted.
(Docket Entry 125.)
On August 25, 2015 Judge Tomlinson issued her R&R.
(Docket Entry 152.)

The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

Haltman Defendants’ Motion.

(R&R at 12.)
DISCUSSION

In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

made

in
by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

judge.”

findings
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of service
of the R&R.

The time for filing objections has expired, and no
2

party has objected.

Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed

to have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Tomlinson’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free
of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Judge Tomlinson’s R&R (Docket Entry 152) is ADOPTED in
its entirety and the Haltman Defendants’ motion to strike (Docket
Entry 71) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

January
13 , 2016
Central Islip, New York

3