Motion | Filed: July 06, 2026
| Entered: July 06, 2026
Pinter v. Land Air Sea Systems, Inc.
Fraud or Truth-In-Lending | New York Eastern
Report and Recommendations
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 59 : For the reasons set forth below, it is respectfully recommended that pro se Class Member Ryan Horban's letter request regarding administration of the class settlement (ECF No. 59) should be denied as moot.
On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff Mark Pinter filed the Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant Land Air Sea Systems, Inc., alleging violations of, inter alia, New York General Business Law § 349. (See generally ECF No. 1.) After the Honorable William F. Kuntz, II denied Defendant's motion to dismiss in part (see Nov. 13, 2022 Mem. and Order), Defendant answered the Complaint (ECF No. 28) and the parties engaged in discovery. (See ECF Nos. 34, 37-41.) The parties eventually reached a class settlement. (ECF No. 42.)
On August 4, 2025, Judge Kuntz granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement, which defined the Class as "All persons within the United States who purchased one or more of Defendant's products either from Defendant's website or from Amazon between January 12, 2018 and January 12, 2022." (See Aug. 4, 2025 Order, ECF No. 50.) On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed an uncontested motion for final approval of the class action settlement (ECF No. 54), which Judge Kuntz ultimately granted. (See Apr. 16, 2026 Order and Judgment.)
By letter dated May 5, 2026, pro se Class Member Ryan Horban raised "a concern" to the Court about the administration of the class settlement. (See ECF No. 59.) Specifically, Mr. Horban argued that his claim should not have been denied because he timely filed the claim and cured its deficiencies as requested. (Id.) Mr. Horban's letter was referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation. (See May 8, 2026 Referral Order.) On May 13, 2026, Class Counsel informed the Court that, inter alia, Mr. Horban's "concern" was resolved, and submitted correspondence from Mr. Horban confirming same. (See ECF No. 61.) Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that any requested relief in Mr. Horban's letter at ECF No. 59 should be denied as moot.
This Report and Recommendation is being served on all parties via ECF. Class Counsel is respectfully directed to forward a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Mr. Horban upon receipt; email service is sufficient to comply with this directive. Within 14 days of service, any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time to file objections shall be directed to the presiding district judge. If a party fails to object timely to this Report and Recommendation, it forfeits any right to further judicial review of this decision. See Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 359 (2d Cir. 2025).
So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 07/06/2026. (BMF)