Prodigy Finance CM2021-1 DAC v. Janak Singh Jasvinder Singh Sethi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRODIGY FINANCE CM2021-1 DAC, Petitioner, -against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 24-CV-6807 MANCO ENTERPRISES, INC., MANETTA ENTERPRISES, INC., and RIMANI GROUP, INC., Respondent.

Appearance: For the Petitioner: LAWRENCE H. COOKE, III Venable LLP Litigation W 42nd Street Ste 49th Floor New York, NY 10036

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Petitioner Prodigy Finance CM2021-1 DAC commenced this action against Respondent Janak Singh Jasvinder Singh Sethi on September 26, 2024, seeking to confirm two arbitration awards entered in Petitioner’s favor in London and requesting that the Court enter judgment against Respondent based on those awards. Pet., ECF No. 1. On January 16, 2025, Petitioner moved for a default judgment against Respondent. Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 14. On August 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the motion for default judgement be granted. R&R, ECF No. 19. Respondent was given 14 days to file objections, i.e., until August 29, 2025, and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal both before the district court and appellate courts.” 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, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (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)). The Court will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).

No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the R&R’s face. Thus, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Court directs the Clerk to grant the Petitioner’s motion for default judgement and to award Petitioner the following, as calculated by Judge Merkl in the R&R: (1) a money judgment in the amount of $78,554.92, comprising an award of $51,850.57 for the First Arbitration Award and $26,704.35 for the Second Arbitration Award; (2) simple interest on the award of $78,554.92, at 12.37% per annum from July 14, 2023, until the date of final payment (at the rate of $26.62 per day ($78,554.92 x .1237 / 365)); (3) $7,720.06 for arbitration expenses, comprising $3,860.03 per arbitration; (4) simple interest on the arbitration expense award of $7,720.06, at 12.37% per annum from December 20, 2023, until the date of final payment (at the rate of $2.62 per day ($7,720.06 x .1237 / 365)); (5) attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $14,731; and (6) post-judgment interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing from the date final judgment is entered until payment is made.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York September 3, 2025