Opinion
20-CV-1482(JS)(ST)
06-22-2021
WALTER WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARK S. RICCIARDI, ESQ., P.C., Defendant.
For Plaintiff: Jonathan M. Cader, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC David M. Barshay, Esq. Jitesh Dudani, Esq. Barshay, Rizzo & Lopez PLLC For Defendant: Daniel S. Moretti, Esq. Samuel H. Taterka, Esq. Tina Bhatt, Esq. Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.
For Plaintiff: Jonathan M. Cader, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC David M. Barshay, Esq. Jitesh Dudani, Esq. Barshay, Rizzo & Lopez PLLC
For Defendant: Daniel S. Moretti, Esq. Samuel H. Taterka, Esq. Tina Bhatt, Esq. Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.
ADOPTION ORDER
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Walter Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced this action against defendant Mark S. Ricciardi, Esq., P.C. (“Defendant”), asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 10.)
On September 24, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 17; Opp., ECF No. 18; Reply, ECF No. 21.) On May 5, 2021, this Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for a report and recommendation. (See May 5, 2021 Elec. Order.) On June 4, 2021, Judge Tiscione issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and recommended that the Court deny Defendant's motion to dismiss. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 23.) Specifically, Judge Tiscione found that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant is a debt collector under the FDCPA. (Id. at 3-9.)
The time to object has expired and no objections to the R&R have been filed. Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds Judge Tiscione's R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 23) in its entirety and Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.