Summary
holding that plaintiffs' allegations that defendants failed to pay them wages as required under the FLSA and NYLL were merely conclusory and therefore insufficient to establish willfulness under the FLSA
Summary of this case from Saucedo v. On the Spot Audio Corp.Opinion
No. 13-CV-5050(FB) (CLP)
03-30-2015
ALEXANDER LOPEZ and LUCAS LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YOSSI'S HEIMISHE BAKERY INC., YOSSI'S 18 CORP., YOSSI'S BAKERY & SWEET SHOPPE INC., YOSSI'S 14 CORP., YOSSI'S 53 CORP., YOSSI'S 13 CORP., JACOB EAGLE, and ESTER EAGLE, Defendants.
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: JOSEPH A. FITAPELLI, ESQ. BRIAN S. SCHAFFER, ESQ. FRANK J. MAZZAFERRO, ESQ. Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP 475 Park Avenue, South, 12th Floor New York, New York 10016
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
JOSEPH A. FITAPELLI, ESQ.
BRIAN S. SCHAFFER, ESQ.
FRANK J. MAZZAFERRO, ESQ.
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
475 Park Avenue, South, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10016
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On March 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court enter a default judgment against defendants in the total amount of $124,190.84. The R&R stated that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than March 26, 2015," and that "[f]ailure to file objections within this period designating the particular issues to be reviewed waives the right to appeal the district court's order." R&R at 24. Copies of the R&R were mailed to the defendants' last known address on March 10, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed.
Where, as here, clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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."). The Court, however, will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).
No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Therefore, the Court adopts it without de novo review. Accordingly, the clerk shall enter judgment against defendants in the total amount of $124,190.84, plus postjudgment interest.
SO ORDERED.
/S/ Frederic Block
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
March 30, 2015