Loadholt v. Oriental-Decor.com Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-08205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Loadholt v. Oriental-Decor.com, Judge Subramanian adopted a recommendation denying default judgment and dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of standing.
Christopher Loadholt and the proposed group of similarly situated people he sought to represent; Oriental-Decor.com Inc.
What happened
In Loadholt v. Oriental-Decor.com Inc., Christopher Loadholt sought default judgment on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The motion had been referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger, who recommended denying it and dismissing the action without prejudice because Loadholt lacked standing.
The parties had fourteen days to object to the recommendation, but no objections or request for more time were filed by the January 18, 2024 deadline. The court therefore found that the plaintiff waived the right to object and to obtain appellate review, then reviewed the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The motion for default judgment was denied, the action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and the Clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 38 and close the case.
The detailed version
- Loadholt v. Oriental-Decor.com Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08205
- Subramanian
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
Christopher Loadholt brought this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Oriental-Decor.com Inc. The opinion concerns Loadholt’s motion for default judgment. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for a report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
On January 4, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended that the motion for default judgment be denied and that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. A dismissal without prejudice does not, by its terms, bar a later filing.
Objections and Review
The report and recommendation gave the parties fourteen days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. It also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The deadline expired on January 18, 2024. No objections or request for an extension had been filed by the date of the order.
The district court stated that the plaintiff therefore waived the right to object to the report and recommendation or to obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the submission and the report without objections and found the report well reasoned and grounded in fact and law.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The motion for default judgment was denied, and the action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 38 and close the case.
Disposition
The order adopted the recommendation, denied the motion for default judgment, dismissed the action without prejudice, and closed the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.