Havlish v. Laden

Havlish v. Laden

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge:

The plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation ("MDL") seek monetary damages from defendants who are liable for the physical destruction, death, and injuries suffered as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 ("September 11th Attacks"). On December 22, 2011, default judgment was entered on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Havlish action ("Plaintiffs"), against (a) certain sovereign defendants, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, Hezbollah, and other Iranian individuals and entities ("Sovereign Defendants"); and (b) certain non-sovereign defendants, including Osama bin laden, the Taliban, and al Qaeda ("Non-Sovereign Defendants") (collectively, the "Defendants"). See  [*77] Docket Entry No. 2516. This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas for an inquest on damages.

Magistrate Judge Maas issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that Plaintiffs collectively be awarded damages in the amount of $6,048,513,805, plus prejudgment interest.

The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations set forth within the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When there are objections to the Report, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id; see also Rivera v. Barnhart, 432 F.Supp. 2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). It is not required, however, that the Court conduct a de novo hearing on the matter. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980). Rather, it is sufficient that the Court "arrive at its own, independent conclusions" regarding those portions to which objections were made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (quoting Hernandez v. Estelle. 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir.1983)).  [*78] When no objections to a Report are made, the Court may adopt the Report if "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F.Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citation omitted). In his report, Magistrate Judge Maas advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R Civ. P. 72(b). No party objected to the Report. As there is no clear error on the face of the record, this Court adopts the Report in its entirety.

Sovereign Defendants

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.