Samtech LLC v. Brooklyn Armed Forces, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAMTECH LLC d/b/a MASSIF, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER – against – 23-cv-01185 (NCM) (RML) BROOKLYN ARMED FORCES, LLC; BROOKLYN A F INC.; CALIFORNIA SURPLUS INC.; JOHN PANOUSOPOULOS; RAMIN KOHANBASH; & SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, LLC f/k/a THE SPORTSMAN’S GUIDE, INC., Defendants. NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants Brooklyn A F Inc., California Surplus Inc., and Ramin Kohanbash, dated August 13, 2025, from the Honorable Robert M. Levy, United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 120. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-cv-00874, 2011 WL 1930682 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-cv00371, 2017 WL 4838764 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record and finding no clear error, I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, ECF No. 77, is DENIED without prejudice for failure to abide by the procedural requirements of Local Civil Rule 7.1, Local Civil Rule 55.2, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”). SO ORDERED. /s/ Natasha C. Merle NATASHA C. MERLE United States District Judge Dated: September 5, 2025 Brooklyn, New York