Helton et al v. Factor 5, Inc. et al

Filing 223

ORDER by Judge Armstrong Granting 210 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 222 Report and Recommendations. (sbalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6

OAKLAND DIVISION
7
8 JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO;

CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of
9 all others similarly situated,

Case No: C 10-04927 SBA
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,

10

Docket 210, 222
vs.

11

12 FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC;

BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST,
13 LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER

SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES 114 100,
15

Defendants.

16
17

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney Fees’ and Costs

18

Under the FLSA. Dkt. 210. On September 18, 2014, this matter was referred to Magistrate

19

Judge Joseph C. Spero (“the Magistrate”) for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 213.

20

On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which he

21

recommends granting Plaintiffs’ motion and awarding $113,120.00 in attorneys’ fees and

22

$15,366.75 in costs. Dkt. 222.

23

Any objections to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate judge must be

24

filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

25

The deadline to object to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation was January 27,

26

2015. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To date, no

27

objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. In the absence of a timely

28

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

1

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee

2

Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see

3

also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28

4

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

5

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an] objection is made, but not

6

otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear

7

error. Accordingly,

8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. 222) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates

10

Docket 210 and Docket 222.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: 1/30/15

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-