Maldonado-Lopez v. Cajmant LLC et al

Filing 100

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court and the letter motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of thisOrder to pro se defendant Vogler. The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Reyes for continued pretrial management.(Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 8/19/2019) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

5 Aua 20 2019 U

EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ,on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

©FFIGE

15-CV-593(ENV)
(RER)

-against-

JOHN SCHMIDT,ROSE SCHMIDT,
WHEATFIELD DISTRIBUTORS LLC,and
ROBERT VOGLER,
Defendants.

VITALIANO,D.J.

Plaintiff Eduardo Maldonado Lopez filed this action, on February 6,2015, against

defendants Robert Vogler, John Schmidt, Rose Schmidt, and Wheatfield Distributors LLC,

alleging violations ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act("FLSA"),29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Following
the entry of default against Vogler, and a subsequent Court order setting a deadline for plaintiff
to move for defaultjudgment against him, Vogler filed a letter motion to dismiss "on the grounds
that the Judge failed to answer [his] question of legal authority" under FLSA. See Apr. 25,2019
Order; Dkt. 93. Upon referral ofthe motion. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. issued a
Report and Recommendation (the "R&R")on July 31, 2019. See Dkt. 96.

As explained in the R&R,the "question" at issue was Vogler's prior inquiry regarding
whether FLSA applied to this action—a question that had been raised in the posture of a prior
motion to dismiss, which was denied. See R&R at 2-4. The R&R notes that "Vogler did receive
an answer to his motion, albeit one that he did not like. The answer was that at the stage ofthe

proceedings in which Vogler asked his 'question,' the case would have to proceed through

discovery." Id. at 4(emphasis in original). Judge Reyes thus recommends denial ofthe instant
|
motion, which simply seeks to relitigate issues already resolved on Vogler's prior motion, and j

lacking in substantive merit. Id. at 4-6. Notice oftime to object to the R&R was given, but no |
party has objected within the time to do so. Id. at 6-7; Aug. 2, 2019 Aff. of Service, Dkt. 98.
Discussion

Where no party has objected to a report and recommendation, clear-error review applies
See Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279,283
(E.D.N.Y. 2014). Having carefully reviewed the R&R in accordance with this standard, the
Court finds it to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore,

adopts the R&R,in its entirety, as the opinion ofthe Court.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion ofthe Court
and the letter motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy ofthis

Order to pro se defendant Vogler. The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Reyes for
continued pretrial management.
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 19, 2019

/s/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO
ERICN. VITALIANO

United States District Judge