Murillo, et al and Cape Coral Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc., et al
Filing
46
ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is ACCEPTED in part and ADOPTED in part and modified as set forth in this Opinion and Order. Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Demand for Jury Tri al (Doc. 10) is STRICKEN. The Clerk is directed to strike Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 10) and indicate on the docket that it is stricken pursuant to this Order. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Default judgment is entered against Defendants in favor of Plaintiff Murillo as to both Counts 1 and 2 for a total amount of $5,131.02 in unpaid wage s and $5,131.02 in liquidated damages. Default judgment is entered against Defendants in favor of Plaintiff Mendoza as to both Counts 1 and 2 for a total amount of $5,379.49 in unpaid wages and $5,379.49 in liquidated damages. Plaint iffs are awarded $565.00 in costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly as set forth in paragraph 3, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/10/2022. (AEH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SHANON MURILLO and JUAN
MENDOZA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.: 2:19-cv-674-SPC-MRM
CAPE CORAL ROOFING AND
SHEET METAL, INC., and
ALEXANDER GOMEZ,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default
Judgment (Doc. 38). Judge McCoy recommends granting the Motion in part.
Neither party objects to the Report and Recommendation, 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, in whole or
in part,” the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence
Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
1
of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the
R&R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error
as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was
plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error
would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.”
Farley v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After examining the file independently and upon considering Judge
McCoy’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts in part and adopts
in part the R&R and modifies the R&R to the extent that post-judgment
interest is awarded even though Plaintiffs’ Motion does not request it. (Doc.
43 at 32). Under the United States Code, post-judgment interest is statutorily
mandated for money judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (“Interest shall be
allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.”);
see also BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1053
(11th Cir. 1994) (Post-judgment interest is mandatory and the right to it is not
waived by the failure to request it.).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
2
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43) is ACCEPTED in part
and ADOPTED in part and modified as set forth in this Opinion
and Order.
2. Defendants’
Answer
and
Affirmative
Defenses
to
Plaintiffs’
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 10) is STRICKEN. The
Clerk is directed to strike Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 10)
and indicate on the docket that it is stricken pursuant to this Order.
3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
a. Default judgment is entered against Defendants in favor of
Plaintiff Murillo as to both Counts 1 and 2 for a total amount of
$5,131.02 in unpaid wages and $5,131.02 in liquidated
damages.
b. Default judgment is entered against Defendants in favor of
Plaintiff Mendoza as to both Counts 1 and 2 for a total amount
of $5,379.49 in unpaid wages and $5,379.49 in liquidated
damages.
c. Plaintiffs are awarded $565.00 in costs.
3
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly as set forth in
paragraph 3, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close
the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 10, 2022.
Copies: All Parties of Record
4
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?