Khudai v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 128

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 112 Report and Recommendation. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation in any event and, unguided by objections, finds no clear error and the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden on 5/8/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAWNAQ KHUDAI,
Plaintiff,

20 Civ. 03686 (JHR) (JLC)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

-v.AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES et al.,
Defendants.
JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Rawnaq Khudai, acting pro se, brings this employment discrimination action
against Akamai Technologies and several of its employees. Before the Court is the November 1,
2023 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, ECF No. 112,
recommending that the Court grant the motions of Plaintiff’s former counsel, the Law Office of
Yuriy Moshes, P.C. (“LOYM”), for (1) attorneys’ fees based upon a charging lien, pursuant to
Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law, and (2) sanctions against Khudai. See ECF
Nos. 94, 104. 1 The Court has examined the Report and Recommendation and notes that no
objections have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds no clear error in the
Report and Recommendation and adopts it in full.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s then-counsel, Jessenia Maldonado of LOYM, moved to
withdraw as counsel in this case. See ECF No. 67. 2 On December 16, 2022, Judge Cott granted
Ms. Maldonado’s motion. ECF No. 81. The Order noted that “LOYM has asserted a charging

1

Judge Cott addressed these motions by report and recommendation because “it is unsettled in
the Second Circuit whether magistrate judges have the authority to impose Rule 11 sanctions or
determine the amount of a charging lien.” ECF No. 112 at 1 n.1 (collecting cases).
2

Familiarity with the facts, which are set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, is
assumed. See ECF No. 112.

lien against Ms. Khudai[,]” the “resolution of [which] will be determined at a later stage of the
case[.]” Id. at 2 n.1. On April 7, 2023, after a settlement in principle of the underlying action
had been reached, LOYM moved for enforcement of a lien because “[i]t [was] undisputed that
the settlement reached . . . qualifies as a party’s ‘affirmative recovery,’ [which] allow[ed]
LOYM’s lien to attach to [the] settlement.” ECF No. 94 at 2.
Following reassignment to this Court, 3 LOYM moved for sanctions against Plaintiff
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 104. LOYM argued
that sanctions were appropriate in light of a “plethora of false allegations” against it in several of
Plaintiff’s letters to Judge Cott. See ECF No. 112 at 11 (quoting ECF No. 105 at 1). Despite
having been warned about the possibility of sanctions, Plaintiff reaffirmed these unsubstantiated
allegations in subsequent filings. Id. at 13 (quoting Plaintiff as stating that “counsel may have
‘drugged [her] with something akin to a date-rape drug’ to get her to sign the settlement
agreement” (quoting ECF No. 109 at 13)). On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the motion,
ECF No. 109, and on September 14, 2023, LOYM filed a reply in further support of its motion,
ECF No. 110. On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply without leave, ECF No. 111,
which Judge Cott nevertheless considered in light of Khudai’s pro se status, see ECF No. 112 at
4 n.3.
The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had “fourteen (14)
days . . . from service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections (plus three days
because the Report is being mailed to Plaintiff).” ECF No. 112 at 15. The Report and
Recommendation also cautioned that “FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL

3

This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Andrew L. Carter.
2

PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW.” Id. (emphasis in original). Nonetheless, as of the date
of this Order, no objections have been filed, and no request for an extension of time to object has
been made.
II.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a 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)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United
States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). With respect to those portions of the
report to which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy
itself that no clear error on the face of the record exists. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,
262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). A magistrate judge’s decision is clearly erroneous
only if the district court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Notwithstanding a direct warning that a failure to file objections would “result in a
waiver of objections and w[ould] preclude appellate review,” ECF No. 112 at 15, Plaintiff did
not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation by the November 18, 2023 deadline.
Thus, Plaintiff waived the right to judicial review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d
Cir. 1992) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)); see also Mario v. P & C Food
Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the
consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a
waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health
and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam))).
3

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation in any event and,
unguided by objections, finds no clear error and the Report and Recommendation to be well
reasoned and grounded in fact and law.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The Clerk of Court is
further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2024
New York, New York

JENNIFER H. REARDEN
United States District Judge

4