Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Intellectual Capital
-
Order | Filed: February 17, 2022 | Entered: February 17, 2022 Lim Tung v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Judgment - Clerk
CLERK'S JUDGMENT that Okin's motion to dismiss at DE# 44 is granted; that the claims against Okin are dismissed with prejudice; that the motions to dismiss at DE# 30, 34, 35, 36, 40, and 53 are granted on the basis that plaintiff has failed to properly serve those moving defendants; and that the claims against all defendants other than Okin are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve process. So Ordered by Jalitza Poveda, Deputy Clerk on behalf of Brenna B. Mahoney, Clerk of Court on 2/17/2022. (Copy of Judgment and appeals packet mailed to Pro Se). (Herrera, Isaiah)
-
Order | Filed: February 15, 2022 | Entered: February 15, 2022 Lim Tung v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Report and Recommendations
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: On January 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Bulsara issued a report and recommendation ("R. & R.") recommending that I grant defendant Okin's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds and dismiss claims against the other defendants for failure to serve adequate process in a timely fashion. See R. & R. at 2 (Dkt. #54). No party objected to the R. & R. within the time required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). When no party has objected to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the recommendation is reviewed, at most, for "clear error." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committees Notes (1983); see, e.g., Alvarez Sosa v. Barr, 369 F. Supp. 3d 492, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 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). I have reviewed Judge Bulsara's R. & R. and, having found no clear error, adopt it in full. Accordingly, Okin's motion to dismiss at 44 is granted and the claims against Okin are dismissed with prejudice. The motions to dismiss at 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 40 , and 53 are granted on the basis that plaintiff has failed to properly serve those moving defendants. The claims against all defendants other than Okin are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve process. Since all defendants have been dismissed, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 2/15/2022. (JB)
-
Motion | Filed: January 11, 2022 | Entered: January 11, 2022 Lim Tung v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Report and Recommendations
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated in the attached Report and Recommendation, it is respectfully recommended that the motions to dismiss Plaintiff Hin Y. Lim Tung's Amended Complaint 20 by the Margolin & Weinreb Defendants 30 ; Rosicki Defendants 34 , 35 , 36 ; Fay Defendants 40 ; and Lamando Defendants 53 be granted, and the claims against these parties be dismissed without prejudice. The Court also recommends that defendant Lynn S. Okin's motion to dismiss 44 be granted, and the claims against Okin be dismissed with prejudice. The Court further recommends that all claims against all remaining defendants, whether served or not, be dismissed for Lim Tung's failure to serve them with a summons within 90 days of the filing of the Amended Complaint, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because this results in a dismissal of all claims against all parties, the Clerk of Court should be directed to close the case.
Any objections to the Report and Recommendation above must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this report. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate [judge's] report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate [judge's] decision.") (quotations omitted). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 1/11/2022. (Bruckner, Ian)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login