Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp.

S.D. New York

Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp.

DecidedJanuary 4, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-01537

StatusUnknown

This text of Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp. (Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICARDO ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 21-CV-01537 (ALC) (KHP) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ESKINA 214 CORP., et al., Defendants.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: On May 7, 2021, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for general pretrial supervision. ECF No. 21. The Court now considers the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Parker on December 4, 2023, recommending that (1) Named Plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz, Henry Flores, and Mario Flores be dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute the case and failure to follow Court orders; and (2) following the dismissal of the Named Plaintiffs, the action should be discontinued in light of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgement, ECF No. 154, which was entered on November 29, 2023, ECF No. 156. ECF No. 158. Despite notification of the right to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties filed no objections. Where no timely objections are made, the Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation as long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Sacks v. Gandhi Eng’g, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In light of the lack of any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the fact that Court finds no clear error in the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 158, (1) Named Plaintiffs are DISMISSED under Rule 41(b), and (2) this action is DISCONTINUED in light of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgement. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate this case.

SO ORDERED. (Arrdhee OCR Dated: January 4, 2024 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICARDO ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 21-CV-01537 (ALC) (KHP) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ESKINA 214 CORP., et al., Defendants.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: On May 7, 2021, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for general pretrial supervision. ECF No. 21. The Court now considers the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Parker on December 4, 2023, recommending that (1) Named Plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz, Henry Flores, and Mario Flores be dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute the case and failure to follow Court orders; and (2) following the dismissal of the Named Plaintiffs, the action should be discontinued in light of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgement, ECF No. 154, which was entered on November 29, 2023, ECF No. 156. ECF No. 158. Despite notification of the right to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties filed no objections. Where no timely objections are made, the Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation as long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Sacks v. Gandhi Eng’g, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). In light of the lack of any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the fact that Court finds no clear error in the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 158, (1) Named Plaintiffs are DISMISSED under Rule 41(b), and (2) this action is DISCONTINUED in light of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgement. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate this case.

SO ORDERED. (Arrdhee OCR Dated: January 4, 2024 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-eskina-214-corp-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack