Chesney v. Prestige Motor Sales, Inc.
1:15-cv-06369
E.D.N.YMay 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Colletta Ann Chesney sued Prestige Motor Sales, Inc. alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), New York UCC § 1-304, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and common-law fraud, filed Nov. 5, 2015.
- Defendant was served but did not appear or respond, and the Clerk entered default against Prestige.
- Chesney moved for a default judgment as to all claims; the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation (R&R).
- Judge Bloom’s R&R (Feb. 8, 2017) recommended denying default judgment on the fraud claim but granting default judgment on the TILA, GBL § 349, and UCC § 1-304 claims, with damages of $7,238.50.
- No party objected to the R&R. The district judge reviewed for clear error, adopted the R&R in full, denied default judgment on the fraud claim, granted default judgment on the other statutory claims, and entered judgment for $7,238.50.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment should enter on TILA, GBL § 349, and UCC § 1-304 claims | Chesney sought default judgment and monetary damages on these statutory claims | Prestige did not appear or contest | Court granted default judgment on these statutory claims and awarded $7,238.50 |
| Whether default judgment should enter on common-law fraud claim | Chesney sought default judgment on fraud as well | Prestige did not appear; R&R found insufficiency for fraud | Court denied default judgment on the fraud claim |
| Whether R&R should be adopted absent objections | Chesney did not object to R&R; requested relief consistent with R&R | Prestige did not object or appear | Court adopted R&R in full under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) after clear-error review |
| Remedy and amount of damages | Chesney requested monetary relief consistent with calculations in R&R | No response from Prestige | Court directed judgment for Chesney in amount $7,238.50 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2015) (describing review standards for magistrate judge recommendations)
- Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 3d 183 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (noting that general or conclusory objections to an R&R are reviewed for clear error)