Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al

E.D. New York

Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al

DecidedFebruary 20, 2024

Docket1:22-cv-07304

StatusUnknown

This text of Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al (Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al, (E.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROGELIO ANDRADE, 22-CV-7304 (ARR) (CLP) Plaintiff, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR — against — PRINT PUBLICATION

A TO Z HARDWARE, INC and ABDO ALSAIDA, OPINION & ORDER

Defendant.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated February 5, 2024, from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak, United States Magistrate Judge. See R.& R., ECF No. 15. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Est. of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the default motion is denied with prejudice as to plaintiff’s FLSA minimum wage claims in their entirety and plaintiff’s NYLL minimum wage claims for the period of December 1, 2016, to December 30, 2017. I also dismiss these claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The default motion is denied without prejudice as to plaintiff’s remaining claims. As to the remaining claims, plaintiff is permitted to file an amended motion for default and revised supporting papers that address the various issues identified in the Report and Recommendation. Finally, the request for fees and costs is denied without prejudice. Ms. Stillman is permitted to submit a revised affidavit in support of her fee request along with the

relevant billing records and proof of costs. SO ORDERED.

______ /s/ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: February 20, 2024 Brooklyn, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROGELIO ANDRADE, 22-CV-7304 (ARR) (CLP) Plaintiff, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR — against — PRINT PUBLICATION

A TO Z HARDWARE, INC and ABDO ALSAIDA, OPINION & ORDER

Defendant.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated February 5, 2024, from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak, United States Magistrate Judge. See R.& R., ECF No. 15. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Est. of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the default motion is denied with prejudice as to plaintiff’s FLSA minimum wage claims in their entirety and plaintiff’s NYLL minimum wage claims for the period of December 1, 2016, to December 30, 2017. I also dismiss these claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The default motion is denied without prejudice as to plaintiff’s remaining claims. As to the remaining claims, plaintiff is permitted to file an amended motion for default and revised supporting papers that address the various issues identified in the Report and Recommendation. Finally, the request for fees and costs is denied without prejudice. Ms. Stillman is permitted to submit a revised affidavit in support of her fee request along with the

relevant billing records and proof of costs. SO ORDERED.

______ /s/ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: February 20, 2024 Brooklyn, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Andrade v. A TO Z Hardware Inc.et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrade-v-a-to-z-hardware-incet-al-nyed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack