Hollander Glass Texas, Inc. v. Rosen-Paramount Glass Co., Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation for 70 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, I adopt the Report in its entirety. Plaintiff shall receive statutory damages in the amount of $25,000, attorneys' fees in the amount of $21 ,904, and costs in the amount of $1,269.31. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/1/2019) (anc) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
:
HOLLANDER GLASS TEXAS, INC.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
ROSEN-PARAMOUNT GLASS CO., INC., et :
:
al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

2/1/2019

17-CV-2105 (VSB) (GWG)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Hollander Glass Texas, Inc. (“Hollander”) brought this action against
Defendants Rosen-Paramount Glass Co., Inc. and Stanley Rosen (together, the “Rosen
Defendants”), and Rosen Paramount Glass & Mirror, LLC (“RPGM”) and David Gutman
(together, the “Gutman Defendants”), alleging claims for copyright infringement, trademark
infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and trademark infringement under
New York law. (Docs. 1, 27.)
Before me is Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein’s unchallenged Report and
Recommendation, issued on March 13, 2018 (“Report”), recommending that I enter judgment for
Plaintiff in the amount of $48,173.31, consisting of $25,000 in statutory damages and $23,173.31
in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 70.) Because neither party has objected to the Report, and
because I find that Judge Gorenstein’s Report is thorough and detailed, I accept and adopt its
findings and recommendations in their entirety.

Factual and Procedural Background
The facts set forth in the Report are incorporated herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. I assume familiarity with the facts and recite here only those facts necessary for an
understanding of the issues before me.
Plaintiff filed its complaint against the Rosen Defendants on March 23, 2017. (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff, after discovering that Rosen had sold the business to Gutman, amended its complaint to
name the Gutman Defendants. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff settled with the Rosen Defendants, and after
the Gutman Defendants failed to respond to the complaint sought and obtained from the Clerk of
Court a certificate of default against them on August 3, 2017. On August 24, 2017, I entered an
Order requiring the Gutman Defendants to show cause why a default judgment should not be
entered against them. (Doc. 41.) The Gutman Defendants did not appear at the show cause
hearing, and they did not request an adjournment. Accordingly, I ordered that a default judgment
be entered against the Gutman Defendants, and I referred the case for an inquest on damages.
(Doc. 46.) Judge Gorenstein issued his Report on March 13, 2018. (Doc. 70.) The Gutman
Defendants have not appeared in this litigation, and neither Plaintiff nor the Gutman Defendants
filed objections to the Report.
Analysis
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the
report and recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report. Id.;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When a party submits a timely objection, a district court
reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected.

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When neither party submits an
objection to a report and recommendation, or any portion thereof, a district court reviews the
report and recommendation for clear error. See, e.g., Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811
(S.D.N.Y. 2008); Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003);
Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Here, the Report was filed on March 13, 2018. (See Doc. 70.) Although the Report
explicitly provided that “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days . . . from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file any objections,” (id. at 17), neither party filed any objections. I
therefore review Judge Gorenstein’s thorough and well-reasoned Report for clear error and find
none.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I adopt the Report in its entirety. Plaintiff shall receive statutory damages
in the amount of $25,000, attorneys’ fees in the amount of $21,904, and costs in the amount of
$1,269.31. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2019
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3