Sandoval et al v. Bayview Car Wash Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Pollak's R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. So Ordered. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 4/16/2015. Forward for Judgment. (Priftakis, Tina)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------x
JOSE ORLANDO AGUILERA SANDOVAL, SANTIAGO
CHOXOM XURUC, BLAS JIMENEZ GARCIA, JOSE D.
VIERA-SANCHEZ, BYRON WILFREDO SALAZAR,
JORGE J. AVILA, WALL YS SALAZAR RIVERA, JOSE
MANUEL OSTORGA, JOSE SIERRA-CARDONA,
BRYAN A. ALVARADO RIVERA, and PEDRO A.
RIVERA AGUILERA,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
14-CV-2648 (CBA) (CLP)

Plaintiffs,
-againstIN CLERK':; OFFICE

BAYVIEW CAR WASH INC., ACJL GROUP INC., U.1'. 01sTR1~v 8<''.'"T ,.. '· .
ANTHONY WONG and JUSTIN LAM, as individual* APR 16 2015
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------x
AMON, Chief United States District Judge.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed this action, seeking to recover damages for violations
of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, as well as other state-law claims related to payment of wages. (Complaint
("Comp!.")~~

242-75.) Plaintiffs identify themselves as current and former employees of

defendants Bayview Car Wash, Inc., ACJL Group, Inc., Anthony Wong, and Justin Lam.

(Id.~~

96-148.)
On November 21, 2014, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a new plaintiff
and several new defendants. (Docket Entry ("D.E.") 22.) The Court referred the matter to
Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak for report and recommendation. Thereafter, on December 19,
2014, defendants responded to plaintiffs' motion, indicating that they did not oppose it. (D.E.
26.) On December 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") recommending that the Court grant plaintiffs' motion to amend. (D.E. 27.)
1

No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding
whether to adopt an R&R, a district 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)(l). To accept
those portions of the R&R to which no party has timely objected, "a district court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund,
L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court
has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Pollak's
R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the
case.
SO ORDERED.

s/Carol Bagley Amon
-Carol Bagley A.morf}
/
Chief United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
/h ,2015
April

2