Boustead Securities, LLC v. Leaping Group Co., Ltd. & ATIF Holdings Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED -------------------------------------------------------------- X DOC #: BOUSTEAD SECURITIES, LLC, : DATE FILED: 10/28/ 2025 : Plaintiff, : : -against- : 20-CV-3749 (VEC) : : AMENDED ORDER LEAPING GROUP CO., TLD. & ATIF : ADOPTING REPORT & HOLDINGS LTD., : RECOMMENDATION Defendants. : -------------------------------------------------------------- X VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS Plaintiff Boustead Securities, LLC (“Boustead”) sued defendants Leaping Group Co., Ltd (“Leaping”) and ATIF Holdings Limited (“ATIF”) for breach of contract; WHEREAS the Court awarded a default judgment against defendant Leaping, Dkt. 150; WHEREAS the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for an inquest into damages, Dkt. 182; WHEREAS on July 31, 2025, Judge Ricardo entered a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Boustead be awarded damages in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest, Dkt. 199 at 14; WHEREAS in the R&R, Judge Ricardo notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R’s findings, Dkt. 199 at 14; WHEREAS Judge Ricardo further noted that failure to file objections would result in both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.; WHEREAS no objection was filed by either party; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp. 2d 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Note; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and WHEREAS careful review of the R&R reveals that there is no clear error.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full, and damages are awarded in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest.

CPLR § 5001 governs prejudgment interest, which should be determined using the principal amount of $794,062. Prejudgment interest should be calculated starting April 22, 2020, which is “the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed,” see CPLR § 5001(b), and at a rate of 9% per annum, see Dkt. 199 (citing CPLR §§ 5001, 5004).

Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see Dkt. 199 at 14, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision, see Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”).

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment for Boustead in the amount of $794,062 plus prejudgment interest per the above instructions and close the case.

SO ORDERED. * Date: October 28, 2025 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, New York United States District Judge