28th Highline Associates, L.L.C. v. Roache

Filing 87

ORDER for 86 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $412,956.50 in attorneys' f ees and $53,625.46 in costs. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Defendant. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/23/2020) (rro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
28th HIGHLINE ASSOCIATES, LLC,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
- against :
:
IAIN ROACHE,
:
Defendant. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

9/23/2020

18-cv-1468 (VSB) (KHP)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Before me is Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker’s unchallenged Report and
Recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, which recommends that plaintiff be
awarded $412,956.50 in attorneys’ fees and $53,625.46 in costs. (Doc. 86.) Because I find no
clear error in Magistrate Judge Parker’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, it is ADOPTED in its entirety.
On February 25, 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant.
(Doc. 64.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, (Doc. 65), accompanied by a
memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits, (Doc. 66–67). Defendant submitted a letter in
opposition on May 20, 2019, (Doc. 72), and Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law, affirmation,
and exhibits in reply on May 24, 2019. (Docs. 73–74.) I then referred the motion to Magistrate
Judge Katharine H. Parker on June 1, 2019. (Doc. 76.)
Subsequently, Defendant requested a stay of this case pending his appeal to the Second
Circuit, (Doc. 77), which Plaintiff opposed, (Doc. 78.) Magistrate Judge Parker denied
Defendant’s request for a stay but granted Defendant an extension of time to file a proper
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. 80.) On July 11, 2019, Defendant submitted another

letter in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, (Doc. 81), and on July 18, 2019, Plaintiff submitted its
second set of papers in reply, which included a memorandum of law, affirmation, and exhibits,
(Docs. 82, 84).
On July 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Parker issued her Report and Recommendation.
(Doc. 86.) She recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be granted and that Plaintiff be awarded
$412,956.50 in attorneys’ fees and $53,625.46 in costs. (Id. at 3.) Neither party filed an
objection to the Report.
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 14 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. 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. Santana v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-2648 (VSB)
(BCM), 2019 WL 2326214, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019); Marte v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-3567
(VSB) (JLC), 2018 WL 5255170, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2018); 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).
Here, although the Report and Recommendation explicitly provided that “[t]he Plaintiff
shall have fourteen days and the Defendant shall have seventeen days from the service of this
Report and Recommendation to file written objections,” (Doc. 86, at 16), neither party filed an

2

objection. I therefore reviewed Magistrate Judge Parker’s thorough and well-reasoned Report
and Recommendation for clear error and, after careful review, found none. Accordingly, I
ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s
fees, (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $412,956.50 in attorneys’ fees and
$53,625.46 in costs.
The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions and to mail a
copy of this Order to the pro se Defendant.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2020
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3