Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. La Bella Vida ALF, Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER adopting 49 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/1/2015. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THOMAS E PEREZ, Secretary of
Labor, United States Department
of Labor,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 8:14-cv-2487-T-33TGW

v.

LA BELLA VIDA ALF, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United
States

Magistrate

Judge

Thomas

G.

Wilson’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. # 49), entered on August 7, 2015, recommending
that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 30) be denied.
As of this date, there are no objections to the Report and
Recommendation,

and

the

time

for

the

parties

to

file

such

objections has elapsed.
I.

Background
Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United States Department

of Labor, (the Secretary) filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, which sought both a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction barring La Bella Vida ALF, Inc., Mavel
Infante, and their agents from “continuing to violate Section
15(a)(5) and 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as

1

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(5) and § 215(a)(3).” (Doc. # 30 at 1).
This Court entered an Order granting the Secretary’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 33); the temporary restraining
Order subsequently expired on July 17, 2015 (Doc. # 43).
This Court also referred the issue of whether to issue a
preliminary

injunction

to

Judge

Wilson.

(Doc.

#

33).

After

conducting a hearing, Judge Wilson entered a prior Report and
Recommendation noting he is “not persuaded that a preliminary
injunction is necessary in this case” because “the [D]efendants’
facility is closed and the relevant employees are no longer
employed by [D]efendants.” (Doc. # 41 at 1). As such, Judge Wilson
recommended the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be deferred
pending a special proceeding. (Id. at 2). This Court adopted Judge
Wilson’s Report and Recommendation, and deferred ruling on the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction pending the special proceeding.
(Doc. # 44).
The special proceeding was held on July 28, 2015, and Judge
Wilson entered a second Report and Recommendation in which he
recommends the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied “[f]or
the reasons stated in my prior Report and Recommendation.” (Doc.
#

49

at

1).

Thus,

Judge

Wilson

recommends

the

Motion

for

Preliminary Injunction be denied because the Defendants’ facility
is closed and the relevant employees are no longer employed by
Defendants. (Id. (citing (Doc. # 41)).
2

II.

Discussion
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.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de
novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
S. 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).
After

conducting

a

careful

and

complete

review

of

the

findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings
and

legal

conclusions

of

the

magistrate

judge

and

the

recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 49) is ACCEPTED and

ADOPTED.
3

(2)

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 30) is

DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 1st
day of September, 2015.

Copies: All Counsel of Record.

4