Opinion
14-CV-6114 (JFB)(GRB)
04-07-2016
MARIA MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. LA FONDA DE DON JUAN, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER :
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Brown, advising the Court regarding the award of damages and attorney's fees. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated March 14, 2016, at 3.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and defendants have not filed any objection to the R&R with this Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety.
Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests of justice.'" (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)).
Although defendants have waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $79,995.00 for Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") overtime wages, damages in the amount of $8,017.50 for NYLL spread-of-hours pay, NYLL liquidated damages in the amount of $65,194.50, damages in the amount of $2,500 for violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act, $18,000.00 for attorney's fees, and $625 for costs, amounting to a total judgment of $174,332.00. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly. It is further ordered that plaintiff serve a copy of this Order on defendants.
SO ORDERED
/s/_________
JOSEPH F. BIANCO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 7, 2016
Central Islip, New York