Government Employees Insurance Company v. Surplus SG, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, ORDER 24-cv-01903 (NCM) (LKE) Plaintiffs, – against – SURPLUS SG, INC., SARIT GOSHINSKY A/K/A SARIT GOSHINSLY, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the instant case dated October 9, 2024, from the Honorable Lara K. Eshkenazi, United States Magistrate Judge. See R&R, ECF No. 16. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Park v. Kim, No. 20-cv-02636, 2022 WL 3643966, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022), aff’d, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-cv-00371, 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Est. of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, Judge Eshkenazi’s R&R is fully adopted as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED as to plaintiffs’ common law fraud and declaratory judgment claims; and DENIED as to plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims. Specifically, judgment is to be entered against

Surplus SG, Inc. (“Surplus”) and Sarit Goshinsky (“Goshinsky”) (together, the “Defaulting Defendants”), jointly and severally, in the amount of $126,883.40 in compensatory damages; with prejudgment interest of nine percent per year, beginning on the first day of the first quarter of GEICO’s payments to Surplus through the date of the entry of judgment, see R&R at 14. Additionally, declaratory judgment is to be entered that plaintiffs are not obligated to pay any of the outstanding claims submitted by the Defaulting Defendants. Plaintiffs are directed to dismiss their remaining claims, or otherwise inform the Court how they plan to proceed, against “John Doe Defendants 1 – 10” within seven (7) days of this order.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Natasha C. Merle NATASHA C. MERLE United States District Judge

Dated: December 5, 2024 Brooklyn, New York