Memorandum Opinion, Doc. 53 — S.D.N.Y., CourtListener docket 535588
- Date
- 2020-04-10
Summary
A Memorandum Opinion and Order by United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon, filed May 16, 2023 as Document 53 in 3M Company v. Performance Supply, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-02949 (JLR) (JW), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It recounts that 3M Company commenced the action on April 10, 2020, asserting trademark infringement and false advertising, and that the Court granted a preliminary injunction on May 4, 2020. It notes that the case was deferred pending a criminal complaint, that the Defendant never appeared, and that a certificate of default was entered. The Court reviews Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis's Report and Recommendation of April 26, 2023 for clear error because no objections were filed, adopts it in its entirety, and grants default judgment and a permanent injunction. It directs the Clerk to close the case.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:20-cv-02949-JLR-JW Document 53 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3M COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
1:20-cv-02949 (JLR) (JW)
-against-
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PERFORMANCE SUPPLY, LLC, AND ORDER
Defendant.
JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge:
On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff 3M Company (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action asserting,
among other claims, trademark infringement and false advertising against Defendant
Performance Supply, LLC (“Defendant”). See generally ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”). The
Complaint alleges that Defendant used Plaintiff’s “3M” trademarks to commit a false and
deceptive price-gouging scheme on consumers, including government entities, during the
COVID-19 pandemic. See id. On May 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction. ECF No. 22.
On May 21, 2020, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed
a criminal complaint against Defendant’s principal, and further proceedings in this action were
deferred pending prosecution of that criminal complaint. See ECF Nos. 28, 30, 31. On
September 29, 2022, Plaintiff reported that the criminal case had concluded, and that this case
should proceed. ECF No. 33. Defendant has not filed an answer or otherwise appeared.
On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff requested and the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of
default. See ECF No. 39. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff moved for default judgment and a
permanent injunction. ECF No. 45. Defendant did not appear or otherwise oppose Plaintiff’s
motions. On April 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and
Case 1:20-cv-02949-JLR-JW Document 53 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 3
Recommendation (“Report”). ECF No. 50. The Report recommends that the Court grant
Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment and a permanent injunction. Id. The Report warns, in
bold text, that failure to timely object within 14 days of being served would result in waiver of
the right to object and preclude appellate review. Id. at 14. Plaintiff served the Report on
Defendant on April 27, 2023. ECF No. 30. Neither party has filed any objections to the Report.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Rule 72(b);
Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). Parties may object to a magistrate judge’s
recommended findings “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition.” Rule 72(b)(2). “In a case such as this one, where no timely objection has been
made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Lifeguard Licensing Corp. v. Kozak, 371 F. Supp. 3d 114, 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal citation
omitted); Lee v. Lending Tree, 473 F. Supp. 2d 435, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“The district court
adopts a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation when no clear error appears on the face
of the record.”). A party’s “failure to object timely to a report waives any further judicial review
of the report” so long as the party received “‘clear notice’ of the consequences of their failure to
object.” Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see Lee, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 436.
Here, the deadline to object to the Report has passed and no party has filed any objection.
The Court has therefore reviewed the Report for clear error. See Lifeguard Licensing Corp., 371
F. Supp. 3d at 118; Lee, 473 F. Supp. 2d at 436. The Court finds that the Report’s reasoning and
conclusions are sound, grounded in fact and law, and not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Court
will issue a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction separately.
2
Case 1:20-cv-02949-JLR-JW Document 53 Filed 05/16/23 Page 3 of 3
The lack of any timely objections, in light of the clear notice provided in the Report,
precludes appellate review of this decision. See Frank, 968 F.2d at 300; Lee, 473 F. Supp. 2d
at 436.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
Dated: May 16, 2023
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.
JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge
3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nysd.535588.53.0.pdf
- Size
- 191,914 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3aa87c59544e6ad84042fe6c3d7eb16ff8371ed98aa90936a5fedd3e440344bc
- Original
- PACER (login required)