Trico Tarek Factory v. Jetax Inc.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only TRICO TAREK FACTORY, Plaintiffs, -against- ORDER 24-cv-03731 (JMA) (ST) JETAX INC. AND JEFFERY TAXIER, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge: Before the Court is a joint motion by Plaintiff Trico Tarek Factory, together with Defendant Jeffery Taxier, the individual defendant, to consolidate this case with two other cases proceeding in this District, as well as a motion for default judgment brought by Plaintiff against Jetax Inc. (“Jetax”), the corporate defendant, for failure to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 17, 20.) Plaintiff, a clothing manufacturing company, brought this action asserting various counts of breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Defendants, a clothing retailer and its principal, alleging that Defendants placed several orders for clothes but failed to pay for the corresponding invoices when they became due. (See ECF No. 1.) The motion to consolidate seeks to merge this matter with two cases filed by two other clothing manufacturers, who also engaged in a series of transactions with Defendants whereby Defendants are alleged to have placed orders for items, were shipped the items, but failed to pay for them. (See ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion for default judgment against corporate defendant Jetax for its failure to appear or otherwise answer the complaint. (See ECF No. 17.) On September 11, 2025, Judge Tiscione issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion to consolidate be denied or, in the alternative, granted in part for purposes of reassignment to one District Court, and that the motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice, with leave to refile a procedurally compliant motion once litigation against the appearing defendant has concluded. (See ECF No. 25.) For the reasons stated below, Judge Tiscione’s R&R is adopted in its entirety. I. LEGAL STANDARD 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 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). “Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)); see also Phillips v. Long Island R.R. Co., 832 F. App’x 99 , 100 (2d Cir. 2021) (same). In the absence of any objections, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Clear error will be found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 222 (2d Cir. 2005)). II. DISCUSSION The Court has carefully reviewed the record and the unopposed R&R for clear error and, finding none, hereby adopts Judge Tiscione’s well-reasoned and seventy-nine paged R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice, with leave to refile a procedurally compliant motion once litigation against the appearing defendant has concluded.1 SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2025 Central Islip, New York /s/ JMA JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 As noted in Judge Tiscione’s R&R, the three actions that the plaintiffs and the individual defendant seek to consolidate have already been consolidated for purposes of conducting joint discovery. (ECF No. 25 at 32.) Furthermore, any concerns regarding duplicated efforts or risk of inconsistent outcomes could be mitigated by referring the motions to dismiss to Judge Tiscione. (See id. at 39.)