Wang v. API Technologies Corporation

D. Massachusetts

Wang v. API Technologies Corporation

DecidedApril 10, 2024

Docket1:22-cv-12002

StatusUnknown

This text of Wang v. API Technologies Corporation (Wang v. API Technologies Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wang v. API Technologies Corporation, (D. Mass. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WEIXING V. WANG Plaintiff, v. NO. 1:22-cv-12002-PBS API TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (#95). KELLEY, U.S.M.J. I. Introduction. In this employment discrimination lawsuit, plaintiff Weixing Wang, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendant API Technologies Corporation (“API”) did not hire him for an open quality manager position because of his national origin, race, and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 ULS.C, § 2000¢ et seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29. U.S.C. § 621 et seg. (“ADEA”), and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4. 1-1); (#24). Currently before the court is plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (#95). For the reasons discussed below, the court recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied. !

' District Judge Saris has referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for full pretrial purposes, case management, and reports and recommendations on dispositive motions. (#23.) Plaintiff's motion seeks default judgment under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In an abundance of caution, the court treats plaintiff's motion as potentially dispositive and issues a report and recommendation. See ML-CFC 2007-6 Puerto Rico Props., LLC v. BPP Retail Props., LLC, 95)_F.3d_41, 46-47 (1st Cir. 2020); Patton v. Johnson, 915 F.3d 827, 832 (Ist Cir. 2019) (“As Article I judicial officers, magistrate judges ordinarily may not decide motions that are dispositive either of a case or of a claim or defense within a case.” (quoting Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 13 (Ist Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). 1 yl(lal2=7 sre Cour np, ey pO hovk-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WEIXING V. WANG Plaintiff, v. NO. 1:22-cv-12002-PBS API TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (#95). KELLEY, U.S.M.J. I. Introduction. In this employment discrimination lawsuit, plaintiff Weixing Wang, proceeding pro se, alleges that defendant API Technologies Corporation (“API”) did not hire him for an open quality manager position because of his national origin, race, and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 ULS.C, § 2000¢ et seq. (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29. U.S.C. § 621 et seg. (“ADEA”), and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4. 1-1); (#24). Currently before the court is plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (#95). For the reasons discussed below, the court recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied. !

' District Judge Saris has referred the case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for full pretrial purposes, case management, and reports and recommendations on dispositive motions. (#23.) Plaintiff's motion seeks default judgment under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In an abundance of caution, the court treats plaintiff's motion as potentially dispositive and issues a report and recommendation. See ML-CFC 2007-6 Puerto Rico Props., LLC v. BPP Retail Props., LLC, 95)_F.3d_41, 46-47 (1st Cir. 2020); Patton v. Johnson, 915 F.3d 827, 832 (Ist Cir. 2019) (“As Article I judicial officers, magistrate judges ordinarily may not decide motions that are dispositive either of a case or of a claim or defense within a case.” (quoting Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 13 (Ist Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). 1 yl(lal2=7 sre Cour np, ey pO hovk-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wang v. API Technologies Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wang-v-api-technologies-corporation-mad-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack