Robert Half Inc. v. Mindy Sleva, Creative Financial Staffing, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT HALF INC., ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-1515 ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) MINDY SLEVA, CREATIVE ) FINANCIAL STAFFING, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This case was referred to a United States magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D. On August 4, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 33), which recommended that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) be denied as moot and the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) be denied. The R&R provided that any objections were due by August 18, 2026, and that the failure to file timely objections would constitute a waiver of appellate rights (ECF No. 33 at 23-24). No objections were filed.

Standard of Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, 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” and “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Rule

1 72(b)(3) requires de novo review of any recommendation that is dispositive of a claim or defense of a party to which proper objections were made. See Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:17CV184, 2021 WL 1147010, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2021). Even if no objections are filed, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see McClain v. Pa. Dept. of Corr., No. 1:19- CV-1951, 2020 WL 1690081, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2020); Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the R&R for clear error).

Discussion The court will adopt the R&R of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff Robert Half, Inc., a staffing agency, is asserting numerous claims against a former employee and her new employer

based on alleged breaches of her restrictive covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets. The motion for summary judgment was mooted by the parties’ willingness to stipulate to substitution of the correct corporate entity, “Creative Financial Staffing, Inc.” (ECF No. 33 at 7-8). The magistrate judge conducted a thorough analysis of the various arguments presented in the motion to dismiss which was not clearly erroneous. The court notes that, after the R&R was filed, both parties submitted filings to address ongoing issues in the litigation before the magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 36, 37).

2 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the court will adopt the R&R (ECF No. 33) as the opinion of the court, as supplemented herein. The combined motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) will be denied. An appropriate order follows.

Dated: August 25, 2026 BY THE COURT

/s/ Joy Flowers Conti JOY FLOWERS CONTI SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE