Jorge Duron v. Kings Capital Holding LLC, d/b/a Kings Capital NYC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JORGE DURON, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § EP-25-CV-00149-DCG KINGS CAPITAL HOLDING LLC, § d/b/a KINGS CAPITAL NYC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IN FULL AND GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN PART

Pro se Plaintiff Jorge Duron moves for a default judgment against Defendant Kings Capital Holding LLC, d/b/a Kings Capital NYC.1 The Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez for a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”).2 Judge Enriquez issued an R. & R. recommending that the Court grant the Motion and award Plaintiff $13,494.00.3 The Court now ACCEPTS Judge Enriquez’s R. & R. IN FULL and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion IN PART.

1 See generally Mot. Default J., ECF No. 15. 2 Referral Order, ECF No. 16. 3 See R. & R., ECF No. 26, at 17. All page citations in this Order refer to the page numbers assigned by the Court’s CM/ECF system, rather than the cited document’s internal pagination. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Texas Business and Commerce Code by transmitting unsolicited and unwanted communications to his personal phone.4 After Defendant failed to appear to defend itself from Plaintiff’s claims, the Clerk of Court entered a default against Defendant.5

Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment.6 Although the Motion states that Plaintiff seeks $72,555.00 in damages,7 Plaintiff subsequently clarified that the $72,555.00 figure resulted from a calculation error, and that he only seeks an award of $13,494.00.8 Judge Enriquez recommends granting the Motion and awarding Plaintiff $13,494.00 as he requests.9 II. DISCUSSION The standard of review that a District Judge applies when reviewing an R. & R. depends on whether any party objected to it by the applicable deadline. If a party timely objects to a report and recommendation, “the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of

4 See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. 5 See Entry Default, ECF No. 13. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”). 6 See generally Mot. Default J.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b). 7 See Mot. Default J. at 2, 7, 10–11. 8 See Pl.’s Aff., ECF No. 25, at 2. 9 See R. & R. at 17. Because the Court is reviewing the R. & R. under a deferential standard of review, see infra Section II, the Court will not recount the reasoning underlying Judge Enriquez’s conclusions. The Court will instead presume the reader’s familiarity with the R. & R. the report or proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”10 If, however, “no party objects to [a] Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” by the applicable deadline, then “the Court is not required to perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s determination”; the Court “need only review it to decide whether the [R. & R.] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”11

Ordinarily, a party has 14 days from service of an R. & R. to object.12 However, where— as here—the Clerk of Court has served both parties with an R. & R. by mail,13 the parties get an additional three days to object.14 Here, the Clerk’s office mailed the R. & R. to both parties on January 14, 2026,15 so the 17-day objection deadline expired on February 2, 2026.16 Neither

10 E.g., Mission Pharmacal Co. v. Virtus Pharms., LLC, No. 5:13-cv-00176, 2014 WL 12480014, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11 E.g., Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018). 12 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”); see also W.D. TEX. L.R. APP’X C, Rule 4(b). 13 See Certified Mail Receipts, ECF No. 27. 14 See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail) . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire . . . .”); see also, e.g., Margetis v. Furgeson, 666 F. App’x 328, 330 n.3 (5th Cir. 2016). The 17-day objection period runs from the date that the Court deposits the R. & R. in the mail, rather than from the date the party receives it. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (stating that service by mail “is complete upon mailing”); see also, e.g., Moody v. Wetzel, No. 20-3258, 2021 WL 3022597, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2021). 15 See Certified Mail Receipts (containing USPS tracking numbers for both mailings). 16 See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (providing that if a deadline would otherwise fall on “a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday” (here, Saturday, January 31, 2026), the deadline automatically extends to “the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”). party filed an objection by that date, so the Court will review the R. & R. under the deferential clear error/contrary to law standard.17 Having carefully reviewed the R. & R., the Court concludes that it’s neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. III. CONCLUSION

The Court therefore ACCEPTS the “Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (ECF No. 26) IN FULL. The Court thereby GRANTS “Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment” (ECF No. 15) IN PART.18 The Court will separately issue a final default judgment that awards Plaintiff $13,494.00 as Judge Enriquez recommends. The Clerk of Court SHALL MAIL this Order to: Jorge Duron 9328 Lait Drive El Paso, TX 79925

Kings Capital Holding LLC c/o Harvard Business Services, Inc. 16192 Coastal Hwy Lewes, DE 19958

17 See supra note 11 and accompanying text. 18 The Court DENIES the Motion IN PART insofar as it seeks an award of $72,555.00. See supra note 7 and accompanying text. As noted, the $72,555.00 figure resulted from a calculation error; Plaintiff subsequently clarified that he instead seeks an award of $13,494.00. See supra note 8 and accompanying text. The Court GRANTS the Motion IN PART insofar as it seeks that smaller award. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of February 2026. [fu [ GUADERRAMA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

_5-