BMaddox Enterprises LLC v. Milad Oskouie, Osko M Ltd., and Platinum Avenue Holdings Pty, Ltd.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 1:17-cv-01889-RA-SLC
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BMADDOX ENTERPRISES LLC,

Plaintiff,

No. 17-CV-1889 (RA) (SLC) v.

ORDER ADOPTING MILAD OSKOUIE, OSKO M LTD, and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLATINUM AVENUE HOLDINGS PTY, LTD,

Defendants.

MILAD OSKOUIE and PLATINUM AVENUE HOLDINGS PTY, LTD,

Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

v.

BMADDOX ENTERPRISES LLC and BRANDON MADDOX,

Counterclaim Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:

On August 18, 2021, this Court granted in part Plaintiff BMaddox Enterprise LLC’s motion for summary judgment against Defendant Milad Oskouie and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendants Osko M Ltd. and Platinum Avenue Holding Pty, Ltd. On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the pending unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and this Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cave. On January 6, 2023, Judge Cave issued a report and recommendation (the “Report”), to which no party has filed an objection. 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 object to a magistrate judge’s recommended findings “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “When the parties make no objections to the Report, the Court may adopt the Report if ‘there is no clear error on the face of the record.’” Smith y. Corizon Health Servs., No. 14-CV-8839 (GBD), 2015 WL 6123563, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015) (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). “Furthermore, if as here . . . the magistrate judge’s report states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then the failure to object generally operates as a waiver of the night to appellate review.” Hamilton v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 331 F. App’x 874, 875 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). As no objections to Judge Cave’s Report were filed, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. After careful consideration of the record, the Court finds no error and thus adopts the thorough and well-reasoned Report in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $223,560.00 in attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion pending at docket number 236.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2023 yi] New York, New York KC RonnieAbrams United States District Judge