Erling v. American Grille with Sushi LLC et al
Filing
79
OPINION AND ORDER denying 77 Third Amended Motion for Settlement; adopting 78 Report and Recommendations. See Order for new deadlines. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/16/2019. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TODD ERLING, on behalf of
himself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No:
2:17-cv-350-FtM-29MRM
AMERICAN GRILLE WITH SUSHI
LLC,
a
Florida
profit
corporation and CHRIS K.
WHITAKER, individually,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #78), filed
July 30, 2019, recommending that the Third Amended Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement (Doc. #77) be denied and the case placed on the
calendar for trial.
No objections have been filed and the time
to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
In the absence of specific
objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review
factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.
636(b)(1).
28 U.S.C. §
The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo,
even in the absence of an objection.
See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),
aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
This case has a long history of failing to demonstrate “no
compromise” despite all efforts by the parties to argue otherwise.
In this latest iteration, the parties indicate that plaintiff
realized at his deposition in 2017 that he was only seeking
compensation for 10 hours of overtime.
Yet, no effort was made
to conform the pleadings, or to amend the sworn interrogatories
filed with the Court.
Even if plaintiff had realized this simple
fix, the parties failed to address concerns over the lack of
consideration
for
the
general
release.
After
conducting
an
independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of
the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The
Report
and
Recommendation
(Doc.
adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
- 2 -
#78)
is
hereby
2.
The
parties'
Third
Amended
Joint
Motion
to
Approve
Settlement (Doc. #77) is denied.
3.
The following deadlines shall apply for the remainder of
the case, and a separate notice will issue:
Meeting In Person to Prepare
Joint
Final
Pretrial
Statement
Joint
Final
Pretrial
Statement
All Other Motions Including
Motions In Limine
Final Pretrial Conference
Trial Term (Jury, 2-3 days)
November 8, 2019
November 8, 2019
October 25, 2019
November 18, 2019, at 9:00 am
before the undersigned
December 2, 2019
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of August, 2019.
Copies:
Hon. Mac R. McCoy
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties
- 3 -
16th
day
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?