Karimov v. OBK Center Corporation et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 6/12/2017. (zvr) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

Case 1:17-cv-20314-DPG Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2017 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-20314-GAYLES
FARHOD KARIMOV et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OBK CENTER CORP. d/b/a BAHOR
RESTAURANT and IRINA ELIUTINA,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 34], entered on May 26, 2017. Plaintiffs filed this action on January 25, 2017, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. [ECF No. 1]. The Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and to Compel Arbitration on March 20th, requesting that
the Court stay this action and order the parties to arbitrate based on the fact that each Plaintiff
signed a mandatory and binding arbitration agreement [ECF No. 16]. 1 This Court referred the
action to Judge Otazo-Reyes on April 19, 2017 [ECF No. 23].
Following a hearing on May 26th, Judge Otazo-Reyes entered the instant Report and Recommendation, which recommends that (1) the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied; (2) the
Defendants’ motion to stay be granted; and (3) the parties be directed to proceed to arbitration.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due June 9, 2017. To date, no objections have
been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommen1

While the motion is captioned as a “Motion to Dismiss” in part; the motion’s sole argument is that this Court stay
the action pending arbitration.

Case 1:17-cv-20314-DPG Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2017 Page 2 of 2

dation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that
the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and
recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The Court has undertaken
this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and recommendations stated in the Report
and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED
and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

the Defendants’ motion to stay [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED IN PART. The Plaintiffs
are hereby DIRECTED to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their written
agreements to arbitrate. The Defendants’ motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks
dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims; and

(3)

this action shall be STAYED pending completion of arbitration and shall be administratively closed during the pendency of the stay. Plaintiffs or Defendants may move
to reopen the case at the appropriate time.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE