Hintermaier v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York

Hintermaier v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x MIRELA HINTERMAIER, : : Plaintiff, : : 1:24-cv-09697 (ALC) (RFT) -against- : : ORDER ADOPTING EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, : REPORT AND EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., : RECOMMENDATION and TRANSUNION, LLC, : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------------- x ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: On March 20, 2025, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general pretrial matters. ECF No. 21. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant Experian’s affirmative defenses. ECF No. 23. On April 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed motions to strike the answers submitted by Defendants Equifax and TransUnion. ECF Nos. 47, 48. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 51. On April 28, 2025, Judge Tarnofsky issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motions to strike be denied as moot in light of the amended complaint. ECF No. 52 (“R&R”). Judge Tarnofsky recommended the motions be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing motions to strike Defendants’ anticipated answers to the amended complaint. See id. Despite notification of the right to object, no objections to the R&R were filed by the deadline of May 12, 2025. Where no timely objections are made, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Sacks v. Gandhi Eng’g, Inc.,

999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632

(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,

262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169

(S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In light of the lack of any objections to the R&R, and because the Court finds no clear error in the record, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky’s R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions at ECF Nos. 23, 47, and 48 are denied as moot and without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 23, 47, and 48.

SO ORDERED. Dated: June 5, 2025 New York, New York [Arado 7 {a= ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown