Wiand v. Arduini et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SLFAQ, LLC
Judgment Assignee,
Plaintiff,
-against- 	1:21-MC-11 (LEK/DJS)
CHRIS ARDUNI AND
SHELLEY ARDUNI,
Judgment Debtors
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On February 12, 2021, Judgment Assignee SLFAQ, LLC (“SLFAQ”) commenced this
request for the issuance of a Writ of Execution to enforce a 2020 default judgment obtained
against Chris and Shelly Arduini (“Judgment Debtors”) in the District Court for the Middle
District of Florida by Burton Wiand, as Receiver for Oasis International Group, LTD., Oasis
Management, LLC, and Satellite Holdings Company, in the joint amount of $26,448.45 in
damages and $5,859.86 in prejudgment interest through November 4, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 1
(“Default Judgment”), 2, 4-1 (“Application”). On October 21, 2025, the Honorable Daniel J.
Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(d), recommending the Application be denied. Dkt. No. 5 (“Report
and Recommendation”).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Case 1:21-mc-00011-LEK-DJS Document 7 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the
Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 1–2.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section
636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v.
Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the
Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those 	portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may
accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court conducts a de
novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a new hearing;
rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in original).
“A proper objection must be specific.” Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. 24-
1103, 2025 WL 3007285, at *3 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2025). To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with
particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Nutt v. New York, No. 12-CV-385,
2012 WL 4006408, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012) (quoting N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c)).
Case 1:21-mc-00011-LEK-DJS Document 7 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4

3
“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no
timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party
makes only conclusory or general objections . . . the Court will review the [report and
recommendation] strictly for clear error.” N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of it. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for
clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339.
In his analysis, Judge Stewart recommended denying SFLAQ’s Application as proposed
because it was improperly filed. See R. & R. at 4. First, Judge Stewart observed that the
requested amount in the Application was “both inconsistent and inaccurate” as it requests
“’THIRTY TWO EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ONE dollars and NINETY cents’”
but then lists an inconsistent numerical amount, “$32,501.90.” Id. (quoting Application at 2).
Next, Judge Stewart noted that the Application failed to conform with the appropriate standard
under 28 U.S.C. § 3203(c)(2)(A) because it “does not include the Judgment Debtors’ last known
address, a breakdown of interest due, or the rate of post judgment interest.” Id. Finally, Judge
Stewart explained the Application was also defective because it failed to explain whether “any
indication to the Judgment Debtors that a federal or state exemption from the Writ of Execution
may be available to them,” see id., as required by 28 U.S.C. § 3202(b). Accordingly, Judge
Stewart recommended that the Application be denied. Id.
Case 1:21-mc-00011-LEK-DJS Document 7 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4

4
After carefully considering Judge Stewart’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation,
the Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court approves and adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 5, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the request by SLFAQ, LLC for the issuance of a Writ of Execution in
the form provided to the Court, Dkt. No. 4-1, be DENIED with leave to refile a new application
with a proposed writ that is in proper form; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 16, 2025
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 1:21-mc-00011-LEK-DJS Document 7 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4