Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alkhatib v. New York Motor Group LLC, 13-cv-2337 (ARR) (SMG) (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20161005b51 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ALLYNE R. ROSS , District Judge . The court has received the Report and Recommendation on these six related cases dated June 3, 2015 from the Honorable Steven M. Gold, United States Magistrate Judge. See Mem. & Order and R. & R., No. 13-cv-5643, Dkt. #93. Plaintiffs assert claims against used car dealerships New York Motor Group and Planet Motor Cars, as well as two individuals associated with those dealerships: Mamdoh Eltouby, who owns a
More

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The court has received the Report and Recommendation on these six related cases dated June 3, 2015 from the Honorable Steven M. Gold, United States Magistrate Judge. See Mem. & Order and R. & R., No. 13-cv-5643, Dkt. #93.

Plaintiffs assert claims against used car dealerships New York Motor Group and Planet Motor Cars, as well as two individuals associated with those dealerships: Mamdoh Eltouby, who owns and operates them, and Nada Eltouby, who was at relevant times employed by them. Collectively, I refer to these four defendants as the "dealership defendants." Plaintiffs also assert claims against financial institutions M&T Bank, Capital One Auto Finance, and Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

The dealership defendants sought dismissal of the civil RICO claims against them, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaints. The Report and Recommendation denied the dealership defendants' motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend. The dealership defendants filed no objections. Accordingly, I have reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); accord Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09cv-874, 2011 WL 1930682, at *l (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error and so, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 1 adopt the Report and Recommendation with respect to denial of the motion to dismiss the RICO claims against the dealership defendants and grant of the plaintiffs' motions to amend against these defendants.

As is evident, this order relates solely to claims by the plaintiffs against the dealership defendants. I decline to address at this time the portions of the Report and Recommendation that relate to claims by the plaintiffs against the financial institutions,1

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. I also decline to address the Report and Recommendation's disposition of plaintiff Tub in's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, as the dealership defendants did not move to dismiss on this basis.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer