From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. Weinstein Landscaping

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 16, 2022
19-CV-06050 (JMA) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)

Opinion

19-CV-06050 (JMA) (ST)

03-16-2022

JOSE BLAS UMANA DIAZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members, Plaintiffs, v. WEINSTEIN LANDSCAPING and MARK WEINSTEIN, Defendants.


ORDER

JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Blas Umana Diaz (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated (“Prospective Plaintiffs”), commenced this action against Defendants Weinstein Landscaping and Mark Weinstein (together, “Defendants”) alleging violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for: (1) conditional certification of this case as a collective action under the FLSA; (2) Defendants to produce data containing Prospective Plaintiffs' name and relevant information to send the Court Authorized Notice; and (3) equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on Prospective Plaintiffs' claims. (ECF No. 22.)

On February 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Tiscione issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, to authorize notice to the conditional collective, and for equitable tolling be granted. (ECF No. 31.) Specifically, Judge Tiscione recommended that Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a conditional collective of laborers who Defendants employed from October 28, 2016 be granted, that the notice and opt-in consent forms be amended and notice be sent to Prospective Plaintiffs in accordance with Judge Tiscione's recommendations.

In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s][are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 05-CV-5579, 2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).

To date, no objections have been filed to the R&R and the deadline for filing any such objections has passed.

I have reviewed Judge Tiscione's R&R for clear error, and finding none, I adopt the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of this Court.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Diaz v. Weinstein Landscaping

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Mar 16, 2022
19-CV-06050 (JMA) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)
Case details for

Diaz v. Weinstein Landscaping

Case Details

Full title:JOSE BLAS UMANA DIAZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Mar 16, 2022

Citations

19-CV-06050 (JMA) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)

Citing Cases

Valdez v. Michpat & Fam, LLC

District courts in this circuit have applied a stricter “modest plus” standard for conditional certification…

Santiago v. Cuisine By Claudette, LLC

accord Diaz v. Weinstein Landscaping, No. 19-CV-06050 (JMA) (ST), 2022 WL 801493, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28,…