Label Health, LLC v. Haywire Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER for 34 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff is granted judgment against Defendants Haywire and Blackwell, jointly and severally, in the amount of $104,750.00 in dam ages, along with pre-judgment interest at 9% per annum from May 25, 2020, and $400.00 in costs. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions, to enter judgment in accordance with this Order, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 6/3/2021) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
:
Label Health, LLC,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
Haywire Consulting, Inc. and Matthew
:
Blackwell,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

6/3/2021

20-CV-5640 (VSB) (SDA)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff Label Health, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action asserting
breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims against Defendants Haywire Consulting,
Inc. (“Haywire”) and Matthew Blackwell (“Blackwell”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.)
Plaintiff served the complaint on Haywire on July 28, 2020, (Doc. 4), and on Blackwell the next
day, (Doc. 3). The deadlines for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint was August 18,
2020 for Haywire, (see Doc. 4), and August 19, 2020 for Blackwell, (see Doc. 3). Defendants
have not opposed the complaint, requested additional time to oppose the complaint, or appeared
in this action at all.
Plaintiff filed an erroneous request for an entry of default on October 22, 2020, (Doc. 5),
and I directed Plaintiff refile its request for a default judgment consistent with my Individual
Rule 4(H), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in Local Civil Rules 55.1 and 55.2 for
obtaining a Clerk’s Certificate of Default, (Doc. 6). On December 14, 2020, noting that Plaintiff
had taken no further action to prosecute this case, I ordered Plaintiff to seek a default judgment
in accordance with Rule 4(H) of my Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases by no later

than December 22, 2020. (Doc. 7.) On December 16, 2020 and December 30, 2020, Plaintiff
filed deficient requests for a Clerk’s Certificate of Default. (Docs. 9, 10.) On January 6, 2021,
Plaintiff properly refiled its request, (Docs. 10, 11) and a Clerk’s Certificate of Default as to
Defendants was entered on the same day, (Doc. 12.)
On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed for default judgment, (Docs. 18–21). On January 29,
2021, I ordered defendants to show cause at a default judgment hearing set for February 18,
2021. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff filed an affirmation of service of the order to show cause upon both
Defendants on February 3, 2021. (Doc. 23.) Neither Defendant appeared at the February 18,
2021 hearing, and I accordingly entered a default against Defendants as to liability. (Doc. 24.) I
also referred this case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest into damages. (Doc.
25.)
Before me is Judge Aaron’s April 30, 2021 Report and Recommendation (“Report and
Recommendation” or “R&R”), which recommended that Plaintiff be awarded total damages of
$104,750.00, plus pre-judgment interest and $400.00 in costs. (Doc. 34.)
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 parties
shall have fourteen days from the service of this Report and Recommendation to file written
objections,” (Doc. 34, at 9), neither party filed an objection or sought additional time to file an
objection. I therefore reviewed Magistrate Judge Aaron’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. Plaintiff is
granted judgment against Defendants Haywire and Blackwell, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $104,750.00 in damages, along with pre-judgment interest at 9% per annum from
May 25, 2020, and $400.00 in costs.
The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to terminate any open motions, to enter
judgment in accordance with this Order, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 3, 2021
New York, New York

________________________________
VERNON S. BRODERICK
United States District Judge