Castillo v. Isakov

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_01/14/2025 NICHOLAS CASTILLO, ARMANDO HERRERA, and: SHERIDDAN VASQUEZ, : Plaintiff, : 22-cv-6888 (LJL) -v- : ORDER ROMAN ISAKOV, DAVID ABRAMOV, VISION : CELLULAR INC., and ST. NICHOLAS MOBILE OF : NY INC, : Defendant.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: On October 12, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and referred this case to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for an inquest into damages. Castillo v. Isakov, 2023 WL 6664552, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2023). On December 27, 2024, Magistrate Judge Stein issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that: (1) Castillo be awarded: a. $1,890 in compensatory damages; b. $1,890 in liquidated damages; c. $5,200 in statutory damages; d. $25,000 in emotional distress damages; e. $15,000 in punitive damages; f. pre-judgment interest at the daily rate of $.047; and g. post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. (2) Herrera be awarded:

a. $3,215 in compensatory damages; b. $3,215 in liquidated damages; c. $7,100 in statutory damages; d. pre-judgment interest at the daily rate of $.079; and

e. post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. (3) Vasquez be awarded: a. $8,370 in compensatory damages; b. $8,370 in liquidated damages; c. $10,000 in statutory damages; d. pre-judgment interest at the daily rate of $2.06; and e. post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. (4) Plaintiffs be awarded $12,250 in attorney’s fees. (5) Plaintiffs be awarded $402 in costs. Dkt. No. 44.

Magistrate Judge Stein advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, and no such objections have been filed. Defendants have not appeared in this action. In reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, 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 are given the opportunity to raise timely objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days. Id. The Court reviews any portion of the report subject to an objection de novo; however, in the absence of any objection, the Court reviews the report and recommendation only for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes; Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018). The Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation for clear error and, finding none, hereby ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety and AWARDS Plaintiffs damages in the amounts stated in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. yi af Dated: January 14, 2025 wt Mh an New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge