Federal Insurance Company et al v. Mertz, Jr. et al

Filing 258

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 232 Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by Great Northern Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Pacific Indemnity Company. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for a Report and Recommendation on the award of attorneys' fees and costs. In a Report and Recommendation filed on April 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended that Plaintiffs' be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,873,510. 64 and costs in the amount of $656,684.36 - for a total amount of $3,530,195.00. (ECF No. 251.) In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had 14 days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. In addition, it expressly called the parties' attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 2 8, United States Code, Section 636(b)(l). Nevertheless, 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. Accordingly, the parties have waived the right to object to the Rep 01t and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008). Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' application1 and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds 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 enter judgment consistent with the Report and Recommendation and to terminate motion at ECF No. 232. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 7/26/2017) (ap)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., GREAT
NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, and
PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

12-CV-1597 (NSR)(JCM)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL H. MERTZ, JR., THE MERTZ COMPANY,
and, DENNIS SORGE,
Defendants.

NELSONS. ROMAN, United States District Judge:
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for a Rep01t and Recommendation
on the award of attorneys' fees and costs. In a Report and Recommendation filed on April 14,
2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended that Plaintiffs' be awarded attorneys' fees in the
amount of $2,873,510.64 and costs in the amount of $656,684.36 - for a total amount of
$3,530,195.00. (ECF No. 251.)
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district comt "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)(l)(C).

A district comt "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.
i\!fale Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the rep01t to which no
timely objection has been made, however, a district comt need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163,
169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only
~···.

'LI::.,,_,,~

0DNY

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FlLEL .
DOC#:
,r
I DATE fILED: 7
I

/2~ ( 2.ot 7. ·!I

..;::oo.::;;;;,c=-~--

----dJ

conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See, e.g., Ortiz v.

Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had 14
days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that
failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. In addition, it
expressly called the parties' attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title
28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(l). Nevertheless, 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. Accordingly, the
parties have waived the right to object to the Rep01t and Recommendation or to obtain appellate
review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga

County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008).
Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' application 1 and the Report and
Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds 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 enter judgment consistent with the Report and
Recommendation and to terminate motion at ECF No. 232.

July z(,,, 2017
White Plains, New York

Dated:

United S

1

The Comt notes that Magistrate Judge McCarthy directed Mertz Defendants to submit an opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion, or otherwise notify the Court as to why no opposition was filed, by October 28, 2016. (See
generally Scheduling Order dated October 21, 2016, ECF No. 238.) By letter dated October 28, 2016, the Mertz
Defendants notified the Court that they "were not opposing the motion." (ECF No. 239.)