Hoover v. 4 Seasons Motors Inc.

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff recover $32,971.98 in damages from Defendants 4 Seasons Motors Inc. and Samer Pharra. It is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff recover his attorney's fees under 49 U.S.C. § 32710(b) and Ohio Rev. Code § 4549.49 and that he file a fee application within (21) DAYS of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation. Objections to R&R due by 9/29/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 9/15/2022. (vb)

Case: 2:21-cv-04177-EAS-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW HOOVER,
Case No. 2:21-cv-4177
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

Plaintiff,
v.
4 SEASONS MOTORS INC., et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Matthew Hoover has obtained default judgment on an assortment of federal- and
state-law claims, all of which arise from a car purchase he made from Defendant 4 Seasons Motors,
Inc., and its owner, Sameer Pharra (collectively, “Defendants”). (Op. & Order, ECF No. 16.) In
essence, Mr. Hoover alleges that Defendants “rolled back” the odometer of a van they sold to him
in April 2021; that he notified Defendant Pharra of this apparent “tampering” after the van’s
transmission failed; and that Mr. Pharra “refused to repair” or “replace the transmission, rescind
the transaction, or take any steps to remedy the situation” after that point. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at
¶¶ 10-14.)
On September 14, 2022, the Undersigned conducted a hearing to determine the amount of
damages to award Mr. Hoover in light of his successful motion for default judgment. Therein, Mr.
Hoover (1) requested treble compensatory damages in the amount of $32,971.98; (2) presented
oral testimony and several exhibits in support thereof; and (3) requested leave to file a fee
application.

1 

Case: 2:21-cv-04177-EAS-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 125

Within the hearing, Mr. Hoover averred, among other things, that he initially purchased the
van at issue for $6,214, and, ultimately, (1) paid an additional $6,000 to replace the van’s engine
after its second transmission failure, and (2) took out a loan (that he took because he had used up
his saving to buy the van and which he has since paid off) of $4,700.66 to afford the van’s repair
costs. So too, Mr. Hoover noted, he was forced to pay roughly $600 in rental car costs while his
van was being fixed. All told, Mr. Hoover claims to have spent roughly $14,000 on the van, which,
due to its unexpectedly worn-out condition, he does not believe he can resell.1
Based on that testimony, and in full view the record, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS
that Plaintiff recover as follows from Defendants 4 Seasons Motors Inc. (d/b/a NCC Motor Sale)
and Samer Pharra:
$ 6,214.00 Sales Price (Exhibit 1 – Sales Contract)
$ 4,776.66 Repair Costs (Exhibit 4 – Installment Loan Agreement)
$10,990.66 Sub-Total Damages
$10,990 x 3 (Trebling Under 49 U.S.C. § 32710(a) and Ohio Rev. Code § 4549.49)
TOTAL DAMAGES: $32,971.98
It is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff recover his attorney’s fees under 49 U.S.C.
§ 32710(b) and Ohio Rev. Code § 4549.49 and that he file a fee application within TWENTYONE (21) DAYS of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

1

 Mr. Hoover seeks only to recover the sales price for the van and the repair costs. 

2 

Case: 2:21-cv-04177-EAS-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 126

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate
review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994
(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the
issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).
September 15, 2022
DATE

s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers___________
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3