NAVCAN.DC, Inc. et al v. Rinde et al

Filing 115

ORDER for 92 Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Report is ADOPTED. Defendants' default is excused, the Answer at Dkt. No. 72 is considered operable, and Plaintiffs' request to seek a motion for default judgement is denied. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/29/2024) (mml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
NAVCAN.DC, INC. et al
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
-against:
:
JEFFREY RINDE et al,
:
Defendants . :
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X

23 Civ. 2267 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, in a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) dated April 23, 2024,
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended that Defendants’ default for failure to file a
timely Answer be excused, that Defendants’ late Answer be considered operable and that
Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment be denied. No objection to the Report was filed.
WHEREAS, the recommendation in the Report was based on a finding of counsel’s
excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which states that, “[w]hen
an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the
time: . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.” The finding of excusable neglect was based on counsel’s representation that
the failure to file a timely Answer was due to counsel’s trial preparation in another case, an
inadvertent failure to calendar the Answer deadline and an unexpected illness.
WHEREAS, the recommendation also was based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(c), which states that “[t]he court may set aside an entry of default for good cause . . . .” The
Report found good cause based on a finding that the default was not willful (given the
circumstances described above), the lack of prejudice to Plaintiffs who were on notice of the

substance of the late Answer and the early stage of the proceedings and that the Defendants may
have meritorious affirmative defenses.
WHEREAS, in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a district
judge “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). “In a case such as this one, where no timely
objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record.” Kuan v. Notoriety Grp. LLC, No. 22 Civ. 1583, 2023 WL 3936749, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2023).
WHEREAS, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record as to the R&R. It is
hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Report is ADOPTED. Defendants’ default is
excused, the Answer at Dkt. No. 72 is considered operable, and Plaintiffs’ request to seek a
motion for default judgement is denied.
Dated: August 29, 2024
New York, New York

2