GARBACCIO v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER AND SUBSIDIARIES et al

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 94 Report and Recommendations; granting in part & denying in part 64 Appoint Lead Plaintiff,, Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed by DONNA GARBACCIO, denying 70 Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed by ANNE MARIE DALIO, MARY LYNNE BARKER, DOROTHY FLAR; that no interim lead plaintiff will be appointed at this time; that Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, LLC and Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. are appointed as interim co-lead counsel. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/29/17. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DONNA GARBACCIO, ET AL,

Plaintiffs,
V.

ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER AND SUBSIDIARIES, ET AL.,

Civil Action No. 16-2740

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.

This matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) motion of Plaintiff Dana Garbaccio
through her counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, LLC (“Cohen Milstein”) and Keller Rohrback,
L.L.P. (“Keller Rohrback”) (collectively, “Garbaccio’s Counsel”) to appoint interim lead plaintiff
and interim co-lead counsel [D.E. 64]; and (2) motion of Plaintiffs Mary Lynne Barker, Anne
Marie Dalio and Dorothy Flar, through their counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(“KTMC”) and Izard, Kindall & Raabe (“IKR”) (collectively, “Barker’s Counsel”) to appoint
interim co-lead counsel [D.E. 70]. Both motions are opposed by the respective Plaintiffs, and
unopposed by Defendants. In response to these motions, on March 13, 2017, Magistrate James B.
Clark filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).

D.E. 94.

In his R&R, Judge Clark

recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Garbaccio’s motion and deny Barker’s
motion. Id. Judge Clark recommended that no interim lead plaintiff be appointed at this time and
further recommended appointing Garbaccio’s Counsel as interim co-lead counsel. Id. The parties

were given notice that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule
71.1 (c)(2), they had fourteen days to file an objection to Judge Clark’s R&R. To date, it appears
that neither party has objected. The Court has conducted a review of the record and of Judge
Clark’s R&R for clear error,1 and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 29th day of March, 2017,
ORDERED that the R&R filed March 13, 2017 (D.E. 94) is ADOPTED2 and made part
of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Garbaccio’s motion (D.E. 64) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART; and it is further
ORDERED that Barker’s motion (D.E. 70) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that no interim lead plaintiff will be appointed at this time; and it is further
ORDERED that Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, LLC and Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. are
appointed as interim co-lead counsel.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

De novo review is required when an objection is made. 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). However, when no objection is made, the Court reviews a magistrate
judge’s R&R for clear error. McKean v. Colvin, 150 F. Supp. 3d 406, 409-10 (M.D. Pa. 2015).
2

The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2