UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- Case No. 24-CV-2830

UTOPIC HEALTH PLLC d/b/a SOSA MEDICAL AESTHETICS and JOHN SOSA a/k/a JOHN PAUL JOSEPH SOSA, individually,

Defendants. For the Plaintiff: MICHAEL F.J. ROMANO Romano, Garubo & Argentieri 52 Newton Avenue, P.O. Box 456 Woodbury, NJ 08096

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On November 21, 2024, Magistrate Judge Anne Shields issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant the motion for default judgment of NEC Financial Services, LLC (“NEC” or “Plaintiff”) against Utopic Health PLLC d/b/a Sosa Medical Aesthetics (“Utopic”) and John Sosa (“Sosa”) (together, “Defendants”). ECF No. 11. In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Shields recommended for reasons stated on the record at a hearing that the Court grant the motion and enter judgment in the amount of $83,662.81, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. A copy of the R&R was served on Defendants on November 22, 2024. See ECF No. 19.

In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Shields gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” Id. No objections have been

filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 149–50 (1985); Smith v. Campbell,

(2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to

timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citations omitted)). To accept an R&R to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund L.P.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2011) (cleaned up). No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review.

Subsequent to the R&R, Plaintiff made an application for attorney’s fees to the Court specifying the hours its attorneys spent on this action. See ECF No. 20. This application explained that two attorneys and a paralegal spent a total of 49.1

hours on NEC’s behalf in this case. See

NEC has requested attorney’s fees for these hours worked at the rate of $275 per hour for the attorneys and $115 per hour for the paralegal, amounting to $12,101.50 in fees, plus $1,004.23 in expenses.

Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s documentation of its attorneys’ hours worked, and fees charged, the Court finds these fees and hours to be reasonable.1 Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees and costs is consequently granted.

Therefore, Defendants are ordered to pay to NEC: $83,662,81 in damages; $12,101.50 in attorney’s fees; and $1,004.23 in expenses.

SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block_________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York March 5, 2024

1 These rates are well below the recently updated forum rates of $450–650 for partners and $100–150 for paralegals. See Rubin v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, --- F. Supp. 3d ---,

, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2025).