Fractal Analytics, Inc. v. FractalanalyticsPro.Com, 1:18CV853 (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Virginia
Number: infdco20190124f10
Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER CLAUDE M. HILTON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated November 30, 2018, in response to Plaintiff Fractal Analytics, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff's") Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant FractalanalyticsPro.com ("Domain Name") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The parties have not filed an objection, and the time for filing such an objection has lapsed. Based on a de novo review of th
Summary: ORDER CLAUDE M. HILTON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated November 30, 2018, in response to Plaintiff Fractal Analytics, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff's") Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant FractalanalyticsPro.com ("Domain Name") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The parties have not filed an objection, and the time for filing such an objection has lapsed. Based on a de novo review of the..
More
ORDER
CLAUDE M. HILTON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated November 30, 2018, in response to Plaintiff Fractal Analytics, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff's") Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant FractalanalyticsPro.com ("Domain Name") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). The parties have not filed an objection, and the time for filing such an objection has lapsed. Based on a de novo review of the evidence in this case, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, it appears to the Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, this Court affirms the findings of the Magistrate Judge. It is hereby
ORDERED the default judgement is entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Domain Name, and VeriSign, Inc., the operator of the .COM registry, shall change the registrar of record for the Defendant Domain Name to Plaintiff's registrar of choice, BigRock Solutions, Ltd., and BigRock Solutions Ltd. shall take the necessary steps to have Plaintiff listed as the registrant for the Defendant Domain Name. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Count Two of the Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
