Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc.

S.D. New York

Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 28, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-03928·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED HERLINDA FRANCISCO and JAVIER BRAVO, DOC # on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, DATE FILED: 7/28/2025 and the Class, Plaintiffs, -against- 24 Civ. 3928 (AT) (RWL) EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION ORDER ADOPTING GROUP, INC., JOHN DOE REPORT AND CORPORATIONS 1 — 50, and DMITRIY RECOMMENDATION BEREZOVSKY a/k/a DMITRY BEREZOVSKIY, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiffs, Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo, bring this action against Defendants, Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., fifty John Doe corporations, and Dmitriy Berezovsky a/k/a Dmitry Berezovskiy, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seqg., 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the New York Labor Law (““NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 190 et seq., 650 et seg, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment. See generally ECF No. 30. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 34. After careful consideration, the Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report (the “R&R’”) recommending that the Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants’ motion. See generally R&R, ECF No. 90. Although the R&R notified the parties of their right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed and the time to do so has now passed. See R&R at 26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no objection was made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, No. 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014); Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Lehrburger’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unpaid call-in pay are DISMISSED. In all other respects, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. See R&R at 26. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2025 New York, New York —ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED HERLINDA FRANCISCO and JAVIER BRAVO, DOC # on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, DATE FILED: 7/28/2025 and the Class, Plaintiffs, -against- 24 Civ. 3928 (AT) (RWL) EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION ORDER ADOPTING GROUP, INC., JOHN DOE REPORT AND CORPORATIONS 1 — 50, and DMITRIY RECOMMENDATION BEREZOVSKY a/k/a DMITRY BEREZOVSKIY, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiffs, Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo, bring this action against Defendants, Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., fifty John Doe corporations, and Dmitriy Berezovsky a/k/a Dmitry Berezovskiy, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seqg., 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the New York Labor Law (““NYLL”), N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 190 et seq., 650 et seg, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment. See generally ECF No. 30. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 34. After careful consideration, the Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report (the “R&R’”) recommending that the Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants’ motion. See generally R&R, ECF No. 90. Although the R&R notified the parties of their right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed and the time to do so has now passed. See R&R at 26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no objection was made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, No. 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014); Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Lehrburger’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unpaid call-in pay are DISMISSED. In all other respects, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. See R&R at 26. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2025 New York, New York —ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc. (Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related