Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Radisson Cars & Limo, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - On February 25, 2016, Judge Brown issued a report recommending that the Plaintiffs motion for a default judgment be denied without prejudice to renew following the provision of a memorandum of law and appro priate evidentiary support consistent with the applicable rules (the R&R). It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of C ivil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the February 19, 2016 R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for further details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/17/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)

FILED 
CLERK 

3/17/2016 3:25 pm

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
RADISSON HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,

ADOPTION ORDER
14-cv-5927 (ADS)(GRB)

Plaintiff,
-againstRADISSON CARS & LIMO, INC. and
HAJIASIF A. USMAN,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Trivella & Forte LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 170
White Plains, NY 10605
By: James Robert Grisi, Esq.
Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq.
Gina Elyse Nicotera, Esq., Of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge.

On October 19, 2014, the Plaintiff Radisson Hotels International, Inc. (the “Plaintiff”)
commenced this action against the Defendants Radisson Cars & Limo, Inc. and Hajiasif A.
Usman (collectively, the “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (i) service mark
infringement, service mark dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition under the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (ii) service mark and trade name infringement, and unfair
competition under New York common law; (iii) violation of the New York Anti-Dilution Statute,
New York General Business Law § 360-1; and (iv) breach of contract under New York law.
On February 4, 2015, the Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendants.
On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff moved for entry of a default judgment against the Defendants,
which the Court subsequently referred to United States Magistrate Gary R. Brown for a
1

recommendation as to whether a default judgment should be granted and if so, whether damages
should be awarded.
On February 25, 2016, Judge Brown issued a report recommending that the Plaintiff’s
motion for a default judgment be denied without prejudice to renew following the provision of a
memorandum of law and appropriate evidentiary support consistent with the applicable rules (the
“R&R”).
It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have
not filed objections.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this
Court has reviewed the February 19, 2016 R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in
both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015
WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without
objections for clear error).
Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 17, 2016

_/s/ Arthur D. Spatt___
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

2