Rivera v. Mr. Z Towing, Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Judge Go's 21 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is DISMISSED without prejudice to reurge. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 11/1/2016. (Barrett, C)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
* NOV022016 *
Plaintiff and Counter Defendant,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
MR. Z TOWING, INC. AND FRANK ANDRIOPOULOS
Defendants and Counter Claimants
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Rafael Rivera commenced this action in 2012 under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), against Defendants Mr. Z Towing, Inc., and
Frank Andriopoulos. (ECF No. 1). Defendants asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff several
months later. (ECF No. 9). After several extensive settlement conferences throughout 2013 the
parties orally committed to a settlement agreement on the record before Magistrate Judge Go in
June of2013. (See Settlement Conf. Tr., ECF No. 14). Roughly one month later-and without
entry of a stipulation or judgment-the Defendants moved to dismiss and for sanctions,
contending that Plaintiff breached a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement, and the
undersigned referred the motions to Judge Go.
On September 9, 2016, Judge Go issued her Report & Recommendation ("R&R"),
recommending that the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied and Defendants' motion for
sanctions be denied without prejudice. (R&R, ECF No. 21 at 25). Assuming that the settlement
agreement was enforceable and that Plaintiff violated its confidentiality provision, Judge Go
soundly reasoned that such a breach would at most constitute a defense to enforcement of the
settlement agreement per se and not the underlying FLSA claims. (R&R at 5-6). Judge Go also
appropriately concluded that sanctions would be premature absent a more developed record
concerning the alleged breach of confidentiality, since clear evidence of bad faith is necessary for
sanctions in these circumstances. (Id. at 7 (citing Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Scivantage,
564 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2009)). On those bases Judge Go recommended denying the motion
to dismiss and dismissing the motion for sanctions without prejudice to reurge.
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many
courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of
Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGO) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The
Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Judge Go's R&R advised the parties that any objections "must be filed ... on or before
September 26, 2016." (Id. at 8). That date has since passed, and this Court has yet to receive
objections from any party.
Acorrdingly, Judge Go's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is
DISMISSED without prejudice to reurge.
Further motions on this matter will be referred to Judge Go as necessary.
Isl Sandra L, 9wnes
SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
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?