From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Begley v. JK Enter.

United States District Court, District of Oregon
May 20, 2022
3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or. May. 20, 2022)

Opinion

3:21-cv-01031-YY

05-20-2022

LAUREL BEGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JK ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED, an Oregon corporation d/b/a Cabaret II, JOSEPHINE JABRA KIRAZ, an individual, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Senior United States District Judge.

On April 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her bindings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [EOF 28], recommending that I grant in part Plaintiff Laurel Begley's Motion for Conditional Certification [ECF 17] on the issue of equitable tolling. Specifically, Judge You recommended I grant equitable tolling for the period between December 1, 2021, and the date on which notice is issued to potential collective action members. F&R at 5. Objections were due May 13, 2022, but none were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge You.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 28] as my own opinion. I GRANT in part Plaintiffs Motion for Conditional Certification [ECF 17] as to Plaintiffs request for equitable tolling. I grant equitable tolling for the period between December 1, 2021, and the date on which notice is issued to potential collective action members.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Begley v. JK Enter.

United States District Court, District of Oregon
May 20, 2022
3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or. May. 20, 2022)
Case details for

Begley v. JK Enter.

Case Details

Full title:LAUREL BEGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, District of Oregon

Date published: May 20, 2022

Citations

3:21-cv-01031-YY (D. Or. May. 20, 2022)