John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Neuman

• Decision Date: 24 November 2015
• Docket Number: 15-CV-1358 (KAM)(RML)
• Parties: JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SARA NEUMAN, FREMET INDIG, TOBY CHANA SCHWARTZ, RIVKA SCHMELZER, CHAYA ESTHER GESTETNER, ADELE TZIPORA TEITELBAUM, HENTSHE MIRIAM GROSS, NECHAMA GREENFIELD (a/k/a NECHAMA DEVORA WERZBERGER), JOEL GREENFIELD, ROIZA BLIMA (a/k/a ROSSALA HERSHKOWITZ), and JOEL GREENFIELD, JR., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SARA NEUMAN, FREMET INDIG, TOBY CHANA SCHWARTZ, RIVKA SCHMELZER, CHAYA ESTHER GESTETNER,ADELE TZIPORA TEITELBAUM, HENTSHE MIRIAM GROSS, NECHAMA GREENFIELD

(a/k/a NECHAMA DEVORA WERZBERGER), JOEL GREENFIELD, ROIZA BLIMA

(a/k/a ROSSALA HERSHKOWITZ), and JOEL GREENFIELD, JR., Defendants.

15-CV-1358 (KAM)(RML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 24, 2015

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff John Hancock Life Insurance Company ("plaintiff") commenced this interpleader action against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Chaya Esther Gestetner, Adele Tzipora Teitelbaum, Hentshe Miriam Gross, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), Joel Greenfield, Roiza Blima (a/k/a Rossala Hershkowitz), and Joel Greenfield, Jr. (collectively, "defendants") seeking to determine the validity of conflicting claims for the death benefit arising under and pursuant to an individual term life insurance policy. (See generally ECF No. 1, Compl.)

On June 15, 2015, plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), and Joel Greenfield (collectively, "defaulting defendants"). (Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 29.) On October 8, 2015, the court referred plaintiff's motion for default judgment to Magistrate Judge Levy for a Report and Recommendation. (Order Referring Mot.)

On November 4, 2015, Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted and that default judgment be entered against the defaulting defendants. (Report and Recommendation ("R&R") at 10, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff served the Report and Recommendation on defendants and filed a Certificate of Service on November 4, 2014. (Certificate of Service, ECF No. 33.) The Report and Recommendation notified the parties of the right to file written objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Report and Recommendation. (Id.) Accordingly, the deadline for defaulting defendants to file objections was November 21, 2015¹. To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. (See generally Docket No. 15-CV-1358.)

A district court reviews those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which a party has timely objected under a de novo standard of review and "may accept, reject, or modify, inwhole or in part, the findings or recommendations . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, where no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, the district court "need only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The court nonetheless conducts a de novo review of Judge Levy's Report and Recommendation.

Upon a de novo review of the record and Judge Levy's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the court affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered on plaintif...