Escobar v. Mahopac Food Corp.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SANTOS ARNULFO ESCOBAR,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- Case No. 19-CV-510

MAHOPAC FOOD CORP. (d/b/a ASSOCIATED f/d/b/a PIONEER), DARHAN DARHAN, AND HAMED DOE,

Defendants. For the Plaintiff: JOHN TROY Troy Law, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On April 23, 2024, the Court referred to Magistrate Judge James R. Cho a motion for default judgment by Santos Arnulfo Escobar (“Plaintiff” or “Escobar”) in this wage-and-hour action against Mahopac Food Corp. (“Mahopac”), Darhan Darhan (“Darhan”), and Hamed Doe (“Hamed”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Cho issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion as to defendants Mahopac and Darhan, but deny the motion as to defendant Hamed. The R&R also recommended the Court award Plaintiff: damages totaling $251,400.14, consisting of $115,578.07 in unpaid overtime compensation, $10,122.00 in spread- of-hours damages, and $125,700.07 in liquidated damages; pre- and post-judgment

interest; and attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,864.05 and costs in the amount of $696.30. The R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, i.e., until March

19, 2025, and warned that “[f]ailure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” ECF No. 110, at 42. No objections have been filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of

further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” (citations omitted)). The Court will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).

No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review. The Court enters judgment against Mahopac and Darhan jointly and severally, and awards Plaintiff damages of

$251,400.14, attorney’s fees and costs of $8,560.35, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The claims against Hamed are dismissed. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York March 27, 2024