BIRMINGHAM
v.
ROFX.NET
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiffs sought final default judgment against five defendant entities on unjust enrichment claims. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part for different plaintiffs. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and entered final judgment awarding damages totaling approximately $3.1 million to the plaintiffs against the defendants.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted the motion for default judgment in part, awarding: Hansen $950,000 total; Zarley $2,057,000 total; Leonov $183,100 total; and denying the motion without prejudice for Parent. The defendants are ordered to pay the specified sums to each plaintiff.
Four plaintiffs (Roman Leonov, Steven Hansen, Mitchell Parent, and Jonathan Zarley) brought an action against multiple defendants including Notus, Glo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
Civil Action No. 21-23472-Civ-Scola
Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), Plaintiffs Roman Leonov, Steven Hansen, Mitchell Parent, and Jonathan Zarley moved for final default judgment against five Defendants: Notus, LLC (“Notus”); Global E- Advantages, LLC (“Global E-Advantages”); Easy Com, LLC (“Easy Com"); ShopoStar, LLC (“ShopoStar”); and Grovee, LLC (“Grovee”) (collectively the “Motion Defendants”). (ECF No. 244.) Plaintiffs seek damages from the Motion Defendants on their unjust enrichment claim. (Id.) The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendations, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. (ECF No. 245.)
On January 5, 2024, Judge Goodman issued a report, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' motion. (Rep. & Rec. 3, 10, ECF No. 248.) For Mr. Leonov, Judge Goodman recommends that Plaintiffs' motion should be granted in part and denied in part: Global E-Advantages should be ordered to pay Mr. Leonov $33,100.00; Easy Com should be ordered to pay Mr. Leonov $75,500.00; ShopoStar should be ordered to pay Mr. Leonov $59,000.00; and Grovee should be ordered to pay Mr. Leonov $16,500.00. Easy Com should not be required to pay Mr. Leonov the $18,000.00 because of his failure to provide sufficient support for his request in his declaration.
(Id. at 8.) For Mr. Parent, Judge Goodman recommends that Plaintiffs' Motion be denied without prejudice in its entirety. (Id. at 9.) For Mr. Zarley, Judge Goodman recommends that the Plaintiff's motion be granted in its entirety. (Id.) For Mr. Hansen, Judge Goodman recommends that Plaintiffs' motion be granted in its entirety. (Id. at 10.) No objections to the report and recommendations were filed. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to adopt the report and recommendations and for an entry of final judgment. (ECF No. 249.)
A district court judge must conduct a de novo review of only “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636. Where no objections are made, a report may be adopted in full without conducting a de novo review, provided no plain error exists. See id.; Menendez v. Naples Cmty. Hosp. Inc., No. 2:20-CV- 898-SPC-MRM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215317, 2021 WL 5178496, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2021) (collecting cases).
The Court has considered Judge Goodman's report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge Goodman's report and recommendations cogent and compelling. The Court affirms and adopts Judge Goodman's report and recommendations. (ECF No. 248.) The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the Motion Defendants (ECF No. 244) and grants Plaintiffs' motion to adopt the report and recommendations and for entry of final judgment. (ECF No. 249.)
Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Motion Defendants as follows: the Motion Defendants are ordered to pay the sums listed: (1) ShopoStar: $500,000.00 to Mr. Hansen, $557,000.00 to Mr. Zarley, and $59,000.00 to Mr. Leonov; (2) Notus: $450,000.00 to Mr. Hansen and $1,165,000.00 to Mr. Zarley; (3) Grovee: $16,500.00 to Mr. Leonov; (4) Easy Com: $75,500.00 to Mr. Leonov; and (5) Global E-Advantages: $335,000.00 to Mr. Zarley and $33,100.00 to Mr. Leonov.
The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on March 7, 2024.
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge