Adrian Shipholding Inc. et al v. Lawdale Group S.A.

Filing 50

OPINION AND ORDER: re: 40 MOTION for Sanctions , opposition papers due Sept. 9, 2011 and reply papers due Sept. 16, 2011. filed by Adrian Shipholding Inc., Atlantis Shipping Co., 20 MOTION to Reopen Case. MOTION to Set Aside Judgment. fil ed by Lawdale Group S.A. After reviewing Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's R&R, to which no objection was filed, this Court concludes that there is no clear error. Accordingly, this Court approves, adopts, and ratifies the R&R in its entirety. Any submission, of no more than five pages, that the parties care to make with respect to fees should be in Chambers by March 1, 2012. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 2/9/2012) (jfe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
:
ADRIAN SHIPHOLDING INC., et al.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
LAWNDALE GROUP S.A.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------X

08 Civ. 11124 (HB)(GWG)
OPINION & ORDER

Hon. HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge:
Plaintiffs Adrian Shipholding Inc. and Atlantas Shipping Co. brought this action against
defendant Lawndale Group S.A. to enforce an arbitration award issued against Lawndale by a
British arbitration panel. Lawndale failed to appear in this action and judgment was entered in
plaintiffs’ favor. Nearly eight months later, Lawndale sought to vacate that judgment on the
ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now move for sanctions against
Lawndale for its conduct in responding to discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), in which
he recommends that the Court should (1) take as established that personal jurisdiction exists over
Lawndale; (2) deny the motion to reopen the case and vacate the default judgment; and (3) award
Plaintiffs, after a presentation of a statement of their fees, their expenses for the motion practice
before the Court to obtain the Court Order dated June 23, 2011 and their expenses resulting from
Lawndale’s failure to provide a proper witness at the July 25, 2011 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. No
objections were filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations” of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); New York Dist. Council of
Carpenters Pension Fund v. Perimeter Interiors, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414 (S.D.N.Y.
2009). This Court reviews de novo those parts of the R & R to which objections are made and
reviews the remainder for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Perimeter
Interiors, 657 F. Supp. 2d at 414.

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's R & R, to which no objection was filed,
this Court concludes that there is no clear error. Accordingly, this Court approves, adopts, and
ratifies the R & R in its entirety. Any submission, of no more than five pages, that the parties
care to make with respect to fees should be in Chambers by March 1,2012.

SO ORDERED.
New York, New York
February ~,2012

ca.,j~b

HAROLD BAER, -:;JR"".'-"--­
United States District Judge