AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

KERETH POWELL Plaintiff, v. METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP (GUARD DIVISION NY), INC. Respondent.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:

Kereth Powell ("Plaintiff") previously moved to recover costs, attorneys' fees, and sanctions from Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group ("Defendant") as a result of Defendant's late production of documents after the close of the discovery period. (See Letter to Judge Freeman, dated Mar. 31, 2014 [dkt. no. 54].) Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman thereafter issued an Order directing Defendant "as a minimum sanction . . . to reimburse Plaintiff for the cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees, of preparing and filing its letter motion and reply." (Order, dated Aug. 7, 2014 [dkt. no. 59].)

The parties were unable to come to an agreement as to the amount of fees to be paid pursuant to Judge Freeman's Order, leading Plaintiff to make a formal application to the Court. Based on the parties' submissions Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation analyzing the requested fees and supporting billing records and ultimately recommending that Defendant be ordered to pay $16,450 to Plaintiff. (Report and Recommendation, dated Feb. 5, 2015 [dkt. no. 97] (the "Report").) Defendant subsequently filed objections to the Report (Defendant's Objections, dated Feb. 23, 2015 [dkt. no. 107]), and Plaintiff filed a response to those objections (Plaintiff's Memo, of Law in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 115]; Decl. of Debra Raskin in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 116].)

Having reviewed the Report and reexamined the objected-to portions de novo — despite Plaintiff's contention that a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard should be utilized (see Plaintiff's Memo, of Law in Opp., dated Mar. 9, 2015 [dkt. no. 115], at 5) - the Court finds the Report to be correct and appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Report [dkt. no. 97] is ADOPTED in its entirety.

Conclusion

Plaintiff's objections [dkt. no. 107] are OVERRULED. Pursuant to the reasoning set forth in the Report, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to pay to Plaintiff $16,450 in full satisfaction of the Court's Order dated August 7, 2015 [dkt. no. 59]. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York


December 17, 2015

/s/_________


LORETTA A. PRESKA


Chief U.S. District Judge

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Powell v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp. (Guard Div. Ny), Inc.
(Dec 17, 2015)