Boustead Securities, LLC v. Leaping Group Co., Ltd. & ATIF Holdings Ltd.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-03749
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: -------------------------------------------------------------- X DATE FILED: 10/24/ 2025 BOUSTEAD SECURITIES, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : -against- : 20-CV-3749 (VEC) : : ORDER ADOPTING LEAPING GROUP CO., TLD. & ATIF : REPORT & HOLDINGS LTD., : RECOMMENDATION Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS Plaintiff Boustead Securities, LLC (“Boustead”) sued defendants Leaping Group Co., Ltd (“Leaping”) and ATIF Holdings Limited (“ATIF”) for breach of contract; WHEREAS the Court awarded a default judgment against defendant Leaping, Dkt. 150; WHEREAS the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for an inquest into damages, Dkt. 182; WHEREAS on July 31, 2025, Judge Ricardo entered a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Boustead be awarded damages in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest, Dkt. 199 at 14; WHEREAS in the R&R, Judge Ricardo notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R’s findings, Dkt. 199 at 14; WHEREAS Judge Ricardo further noted that failure to file objections would result in both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.; WHEREAS no objection was filed by either party; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, 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)U)(C); WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp. 2d 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Note; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and WHEREAS careful review of the R&R reveals that there is no clear error. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full, and damages are awarded in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest. Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see Dkt. 199 at 14, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision, see Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for Boustead in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest and close the case.

SO ORDERED. \ Owe ( ~ Date: October 24, 2025 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, New York United States District Judge