Perez v. AP Facilities Consultants, Inc. et al
ORDER: No objections have been filed to Magistrate Judge Brown's August 11, 2017 Report and Recommendation 18 as modified by his September 7, 2017 electronic order. The Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation for clear error, and, finding none, hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Brown's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions as to Defendant AP Facilities Consultants, Inc. ("AP Facilities") 16 is hereby granted. Defendant AP Facilities' answer is stricken and the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter the default of Defendant AP Facilities. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 9/29/2017. (Valentin, Winnethka)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor,
United States Department of Labor
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
-againstAP FACILITIES CONSULTANTS, INC., a Corporation,
ROBERT J. SCARETTA, a/k/a “Bob Wolf” individually
And as President
LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
On August 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Gary Brown issued a report and
recommendation (the “Report and Recommendation”) (ECF No. 18), wherein he recommended
that Plaintiff Thomas E. Perez’s September 14, 2016 motion for sanctions against Defendants AP
Facilities Consultants, Inc. (“AP Facilities”) and Robert J. Scaretta be granted. (See Pls.’ Mot.,
ECF No. 16). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Brown recommended that, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Defendants’ answer be stricken and default judgment be entered.
Objections to any report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). No objections were filed here.
On August 30, 2017, after the deadline to file objections had passed, Defendant Scaretta
filed a motion to stay the case stating that he is “in ill health,” he is “unable to defend [him]self
at this time,” and “[t]he [defendant] company is closed and has no money available for a lawyer
to represent it.” (Def.’s Letter Mot. 1, ECF 19.) Defendant Scaretta requested “a continuance,
until the time that [he is] in good and able health to defend [him]self.” (Def.’s Letter Mot. 1,
ECF 19.) By order dated September 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Brown granted in part, and
denied in part Defendant Scaretta’s motion to stay and modified his August 11, 2017 Report and
Recommendation accordingly. (Sept. 7 2017 Electronic Order.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge
Brown withdrew his Report and Recommendation as to Defendant Scaretta, in light of his
personal challenges, and “withdrew” Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as to Defendant Scaretta
without prejudice to renew. With regard to Defendant AP Facilities, Magistrate Judge Brown
denied the request for a stay; his findings on the motion for sanctions requesting entry of default
judgment and sanctions remained unchanged. (Sept. 7 2017 Electronic Order.)
No objections were filed to the modified report and recommendation. Where no
objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v.
Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York,
160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and, finding none,
hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions as to Defendant AP Facilities is hereby
granted. Defendant AP Facilities’ answer is stricken and the Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed to enter the default of Defendant AP Facilities.
LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 29, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?