MADDY et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Filing 232

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Defendant's 185 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/26/2016. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONALD MADDY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action No.
14-490 (JBS/KMW)

v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
New York Corporation,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant
General Electric Company’s (hereinafter, “Defendant”) motion to
dismiss the claims of opt-in Plaintiffs Michael Rose and Kevin
Frawley (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) with prejudice for failure
to respond to discovery [see Docket Item 185]; and the Court
having considered the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
Karen M. Williams, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) [see Docket Item 230]; and Judge
Williams having advised the parties that, under Local Civil Rule
72.1(c)(2), they had fourteen days from receipt of the Report
and Recommendation to file and serve any objections [see Docket
Item 230 at 8]; and no objections having been filed, and the
time to file objections under Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2) having
expired;1 and the Court having considered the parties’

1

As reflected on the docket, the time to file objections expired
on February 25, 2016.

submissions relative to Defendant’s dismissal motion [see Docket
Items 185, 195, 196, & 197];2 and the Court finding the Report
and Recommendation neither clearly erroneous, nor contrary to
law; and for good cause shown
IT IS this

26th

day of

February

, 2016, hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket Item
230] shall be, and hereby is, ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Docket Item
185] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED for the reasons expressed
in the Report and Recommendation.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

2

Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, on account of
their failure to provide responses to Defendant’s requests for
production of documents. (See generally Def.’s Br. at 1.)
Shortly after the filing of Defendant’s motion, however,
Plaintiffs served responses to Defendant’s discovery requests,
and have, since that time, continued to participate in
discovery. (See generally Pls.’ Opp’n at 5-7.) Despite this
development, Defendant continued to pursue its dismissal motion.
(See generally Def.’s Reply at 5-6.)
2