Igal Harbuzaniya v. Fit for Bucks Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IGAL HARBUZANIYA, Plaintiff,

– against – ORDER 23-cv-09155 (NCM) (TAM) FIT FOR BUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:

This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated July 6, 2026, from the Honorable Taryn A. Merkl, United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 26. The R&R recommends that the undersigned find that the Eastern District of New York lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant and is not a proper venue for this action, transfer this case to the Central District of California where venue is proper, and deny without prejudice plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. In the alternative, the R&R recommends that, should the case not be transferred, the motion for default judgment be denied. 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-0371, 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant, a Delaware corporation based in California. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California where venue is proper and close the case. 28 U.S.C § 1406(a). Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 25, is denied without prejudice to renew in that district. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on defendant and file proof of such service on the docket on or before August 7, 2026.

SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: July 31, 2026 Brooklyn, New York