Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 75). Defendant Titan International USA (hereinafter “defendant” or “Titan”) filed an objection, (doc. # 76), to which plaintiff Glenn Alexander Bass (hereinafter “plaintiff”) responded, (doc. # 77).
On June 21, 2011, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendant Titan, its individual co-defendants James Harris (“Harris”) and John Braff (“Braff”), and numerous other unnamed defendants. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff alleged that defendants owed plaintiff money for work performed under his employment, compensation, and software license agreements with defendant Titan. (Doc. # 76).
The parties engaged in a settlement conference on April 9, 2013, and reached a settlement agreement which was reduced to writing. (Doc. # 59). As a result, the instant action was dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 69).
The agreement discharged the individual defendants from liability. (Doc. # 76). Defendant Titan agreed to pay $30, 000 within 60 days of execution of the settlement agreement, and a further $100, 000 to be paid in three equal installments within three years from the date of the first payment. (Doc. # 76-1). These conditions were set forth at paragraph 2, entitled “payment.” (Doc. # 76-1). In exchange for this payment, defendants were permitted to continue using software created and developed by plaintiff. (Doc. # 77).
However, at paragraph 3 of the agreement, entitled “security for Titan’s payment, ” defendant also agreed that in the event of default on payment obligations, it would cease using any and all software created or developed by plaintiff. (Doc. # 76-1).
The agreement provided that defendant would have ten days to cure default, and would be required to cease use on the eleventh day if it did not comply. (Doc. # 76-1). This paragraph also provided that defendant would physically turn over the software and eliminate it from its systems by the fifteenth day of default. (Doc. # 76-1).
On or about November 1, 2013, defendant made the initial payment of $30, 000. (Doc. # 76-1). On September 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement and reduce to judgment. (Doc. # 71). Plaintiff stated that defendant had failed to make its first installment payment within the requisite one-year period. (Doc. # 71). Accordingly, plaintiff requested that the court reduce the settlement to judgment. (Doc. # 71).
Defendant Titan did not file a response. However, defendant Harris filed a notice of letter in response to plaintiff’s motion on behalf of defendant Titan. (Doc. # 74).
Judge Hoffman then considered the motion and issued a report and recommendation. (Doc. # 75). He noted that a corporation must appear by licensed counsel, and that failure to comply with this requirement may result in default or dismissal. (Doc. # 75). Because defendant failed to comply with this requirement, Judge Hoffman recommended that plaintiff’s motion be granted. (Doc. # 75). Defendant then filed the instant objection through counsel. (Doc. # 76).
II. Legal Standard
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States magistrate judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR IB 3-2. Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), a party may object to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge within fourteen days from the date of service of the findings and recommendations. LR IB 3-2(a). Similarly, Local Rule 7-2 provides that a party must file an ...