Clarifying Objections to Magistrate Reports and Pleading Requirements under N.Y. GBL § 399-p:
A Commentary on Oparaji v. Home Retention Corp., 24-1444-cv (2d Cir. July 10, 2025)

I. Introduction

Background. Pro se plaintiff Maurice Oparaji sued Home Retention Corporation (“HRC”), two law firms, and individual lawyers, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 399-p & 399-z, together with several state-law fraud claims. HRC defaulted; the law-firm defendants moved to dismiss.

Procedural Posture. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued two Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”). The first recommended (i) granting default as to HRC on one TCPA subsection, (ii) dismissing all claims against the law firms, and (iii) declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law fraud claims. The second fixed statutory damages at $8,000 + costs. District Judge Vitaliano adopted both R&Rs. Mr. Oparaji appealed, challenging (a) the district court’s use of the “clear error” standard when reviewing the first R&R, (b) dismissal of his § 399-p claim, and (c) the amount of damages.

Key Issues on Appeal.

1. The correct standard of review a district court must apply to an R&R when the objections are allegedly “conclusory.”
2. Pleading requirements for a telemarketing claim under N.Y. GBL § 399-p— specifically, whether plaintiff must allege use of an Automatic Dialing–Announcing Device (“ADAD”).
3. The methodology for calculating statutory and treble damages under TCPA § 227(c)(5) on a default judgment.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed in full:

• Standard of Review: Even assuming the district court should have applied de novo review to the first R&R, the court stated in the alternative that it would have reached the identical result; therefore, any error was harmless.
• N.Y. GBL § 399-p Claim: Dismissal was proper because the complaint failed to allege that calls were placed using an ADAD—an indispensable statutory element.
• Damages Under § 227(c)(5): $500 per proven call, totalling $8,000, was supported by record evidence; plaintiff did not meet the burden for additional calls or treble damages.
• Abandoned Issues: By not briefing them, Mr. Oparaji forfeited challenges to the dismissal of his § 227(b)(1), § 227(c)(5) (against law firms), § 399-z, and state-law fraud claims.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Mazzei v. The Money Store, 62 F.4th 88 (2d Cir. 2023) – Restated the liberal Rule 12(b)(6) standard, framing how the panel assessed dismissal of the GBL and TCPA claims.
2. Henry v. Oluwole, 108 F.4th 45 (2d Cir. 2024) – Provided the dual standard (clear-error for factual findings, de novo for legal issues) for reviewing damages awards.
3. Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112 (2d Cir. 2022) – Interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); underscored that a district judge must conduct de novo review only of “properly objected-to” portions of an R&R.
4. Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) – Held that perfunctory or general objections do not trigger de novo review, enabling the district court to apply a clear-error lens here.
5. Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 1999) – Mandated an evidentiary basis—beyond mere allegations—to fix damages on default, guiding the district court’s $8,000 calculation.

Notably, the panel cited no authority treating § 399-p specifically; instead, it performed a straightforward statutory-text analysis, effectively filling a jurisprudential gap regarding the pleading of ADAD use.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Objections Standard. Rule 72(b)(3) prescribes de novo review for “proper” objections. The district court labeled plaintiff’s objections “conclusory.” Second Circuit precedent (Mario) allows a reduced standard in that circumstance. Even if that was error, the panel found it harmless because the court announced the same ruling under either standard.
2. Section 399-p Pleading Deficiency. The statute expressly prohibits use of an ADAD unless certain requirements are met. Plaintiff’s own narrative described live agents, not automated messages. Consequently, an essential element was absent, warranting dismissal.
3. Damages Methodology.
   • Step 1 – Link Calls to Defendant. Phone records + complaint correlation confirmed 16 calls from HRC.
   • Step 2 – Statutory Baseline. $500 × 16 = $8,000 (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B)).
   • Step 3 – Treble Damages Discretion. Lacking proof of “willful or knowing” violation, trebling was denied (id. § 227(c)(5)(C)).
4. Abandonment on Appeal. Citing Green v. NYC Dep’t of Educ., the panel reiterated that issues not briefed are forfeited.

C. Potential Impact

Although issued as a “Summary Order” and therefore non-precedential (Local Rule 32.1.1), the decision offers persuasive guidance in three respects:

1. Heightened Specificity for § 399-p Claims. Plaintiffs must plead the use of an ADAD or similar automated technology— mere unwanted live telemarketing calls will not do.
2. Best Practices for Objections to R&Rs. Litigants must present focused, argument-specific objections; incorporating prior briefing verbatim risks clear-error review.
3. Damages Proof in TCPA Defaults. Even where liability is conceded via default, plaintiffs bear an evidentiary burden to tie each call to the defendant and to justify treble damages.

Lower courts in the Second Circuit, and potentially beyond, are likely to cite this order when confronting boilerplate objections or thinly-pled § 399-p claims. Telemarketers and their counsel should also note the court’s willingness to embed TCPA call-count determinations in hard evidence rather than plaintiff say-so.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Automatic Dialing–Announcing Device (ADAD)

A machine that dials telephone numbers and delivers a recorded message without a live human being initiating the call. Its use is tightly regulated by federal and state law.

Rule 72(b) Report & Recommendation (R&R)

A magistrate judge’s proposed findings on dispositive motions. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify those findings after considering objections.

Clear-Error Review

A deferential standard: findings stand unless the reviewing court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

De Novo Review

Non-deferential; the district judge conducts a fresh look at the record and law as though the matter were before the court for the first time.

Statutory vs. Treble Damages (TCPA § 227(c)(5))

Baseline damages of $500 per call; the court may multiply up to three-times ($1,500 per call) for “willful or knowing” violations.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Federal courts may decline to hear related state-law claims once all federal claims over which they had original jurisdiction are dismissed.

V. Conclusion

Oparaji v. Home Retention Corp. furnishes an instructive primer on (1) crafting substantive objections to an R&R, (2) pleading the technological element central to N.Y. GBL § 399-p, and (3) proving TCPA damages after default. While not binding precedent, the order’s meticulous statutory analysis and evidentiary rigor will likely resonate in future telemarketing litigation and magistrate-judge practice throughout the Second Circuit.

Key takeaways for practitioners:

• Always allege the presence of an ADAD (or analogous automated system) if invoking GBL § 399-p.
• When objecting to an R&R, develop discrete, record-specific arguments; avoid wholesale incorporation of earlier briefing.
• Even in default scenarios, document each call or transmission and marshal proof of “willful” conduct if treble damages are sought.

Ultimately, the decision underscores the judiciary’s twin demands for procedural precision and evidentiary substantiation, reminding plaintiffs and defense counsel alike that telemarketing and consumer-protection claims will rise or fall on careful pleading and concrete proof.