Glaser v. Hagen et al

Filing 20

ORDERED that a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the actual fraud claim in Count I be and is entered in plaintiff Michael Glaser's favor against defendant Richard Hagen in the total amount of $186,837.59 with pre-judgment intere st at six percent starting 6/4/2014 through 2/5/2016; that a concurrent judgment of $135,000.00 be and is entered in plaintiff's favor with the same interest provision; that plaintiff is also awarded $10,125.50 in attorney's fees and costs; that defendant Marie Hagen and Counts II, III, IV, and V be and are DISMISSED from this civil action. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 2/5/2016. (rban, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
MICHAEL GLASER

Plaintiff,

No. l:14-cv-1726 (LMB/IDD)

V.

RICHARD HAGEN, etal.
Defendants.
ORDER

On October 29,2015 amagistrate judge issued aReport and Recommendation [Dkt. No.

17] ("Report") in which he recommended that plaintiffs Motion for Defauh Judgment [Dkt. No.
10] be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, he recommended that all claims against
co-defendant Marie Hagen be dismissed because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over

her. Report at 4. As to the remaining defendant, Richard Hagen, he recommended that a

judgment of$135,000, plus interest at the rate ofsix (6) percent per annum calculated from June
4,2014, be entered in plaintiffs favor on the breach ofcontract claim. Id at 13-14. He also

found that plaintifffailed to establish that he was entitled to recover on any ofhis other claims
and denied himany additional damages. Id at 8-13.

The parties were advised that any objection to the Report had to be filed within 14 days
and that failure to file an objection would waive appellate review ofajudgment based on the

Report. Id at 14-15. On November 13,2015, plaintifftimely filed an objection to the
recommendation that he be denied reliefon his claims for actual and constructive fraud.

PI. s

Objection to Report &Recommendations [Dkt. No. 18] at 1. He did not object to the finding that