Summary
finding that "it is reasonable to infer that Defendants engaged in interstate commerce by handling and otherwise working with cleaning supplies that have been moved from or produced in other states"
Summary of this case from Lemus v. PezzementiOpinion
17-CV-7603 (SJ) (PK)
07-08-2019
NILDA SUAREZ CASTANEDA and MARIA CALLE ALVARADO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. F&R CLEANING SERVICES CORP., ROBERT MELINE, JESUS VAZQUEZ, and FRANTZ SCUTT, Defendants.
APPEARANCES Troy Law, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Suite 119 By: Aaron Schweitzer John Troy Attorney for Plaintiffs
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPEARANCES
Troy Law, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard
Suite 119
Flushing, NY 11355
Suite 119
By: Aaron Schweitzer
John Troy
Attorney for Plaintiffs JOHNSON, Senior United States District Judge :
Plaintiffs brought this Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 650 et seq. Plaintiff Suarez Castaneda also seeks damages for discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296 et seq., and gender discrimination in violation of N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107 et seq. Defendants failed to answer the complaint and Plaintiffs motion for default was referred to Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo, for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommended plaintiff Suarez Castaneda be awarded a total of $16,122.15 plus post-judgment interest, Plaintiff Calle Alvarado be awarded a total of $31,442.98 plus post-judgment interest, and an award of $19,203.58 in attorney's fees and costs for Plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Kuo gave the parties until April 4, 2019 to file objections. No objections have been filed to date.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections waives the right to appeal the magistrate's decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
Upon review of the recommendations and for the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Sterling Johnson Jr.
Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J. Dated: July 8, 2019
Brooklyn, NY