Franco Cortez v. Hellenic Republic, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 0:24-cv-60999-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

FRANCO CORTEZ, Plaintiff,

v.

HELLENIC REPUBLIC, INC., et al., Defendants.

_________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 15] and on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch [ECF No. 22]. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1) requires that in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court must, therefore, conduct a de novo review if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report and recommendation. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citations omitted); Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). If no party files a timely objection to a factual finding in the report and recommendation, the Court reviews that finding for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions, of course, are subject to de novo review even if no party specifically objects. United States v. Keel, 164 F. App’x 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). II. DISCUSSION On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), seeking unpaid minimum wages, time-and-a-half overtime pay, unpaid tips, and liquated damages. [ECF No. 1 at 2–3]. A Clerk’s entry of default was entered against all Defendants on August 29, 2024. [ECF No. 11]. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, seeking default judgment against all Defendants. [ECF No. 15]. On October 9, 2024, the undersigned referred the

instant Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation, and for any hearings Judge Augustin Birch deemed appropriate. [ECF No. 16]. On December 19, 2024, Judge Augustin-Birch held an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s damages due to the “shortfalls in Plaintiff’s affidavit.” [See PAPERLESS MINUTE ENTRY, ECF No. 21]. Judge Augustin-Birch filed her Report and Recommendation on January 8, 2025, recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 22]. As of the date of this Order, no party has filed Objections, and the time period for filing Objections has expired. Thus, the matter is ripe for resolution. Upon due consideration, Judge Augustin-Birch properly found that Defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend this action, that Plaintiff stated a cause of action under the FLSA, and that entry of a default judgment was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). [ECF No. 22 at 2–5]. Judge Augustin-Birch also correctly concluded that Plaintiff should receive an award of $449.50

in unpaid wages, $258.35 in unpaid overtime wages, $5,142.86 in unpaid tips, and $5,850.71 in liquidated damages. [Id. at 7–9]. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, and awards Plaintiff $11,701.42 in damages. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch [ECF No. 22], GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 15], and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment by default in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $11,701.42, consisting of $449.50 in unpaid wages, $258.35 in unpaid overtime wages, $5,142.86 in unpaid tips, and $5,850.71 in liquidated damages. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 23, 2025.

'>, DAVID S, LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record