Jean-Jacques v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation 5 without de novo review and directs the Clerk to remand this case back to Supreme Court, Kings County in accordance with the Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 11/21/2022. (MI)

Download PDF
Case 1:22-cv-06138-FB-RLM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------x BERNARD JEAN-JACQUES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-6138 (FB) (RLM) -againstUBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and UBER USA, LLC, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: MARK J. LINDER Harmon Linder & Rogowsky 3 Park Avenue, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10016 For Defendants: TIMOTHY CARR Goldberg Segalla 200 Garden Plaza, Suite 520 Garden City, NY 11530 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On October 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this matter be remanded sua sponte to Supreme Court, Kings County for lack of jurisdiction and procedural defects. On October 12, 2022, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber U.S.A., LLC (“Defendants”) removed this personal injury action to federal court on the basis that parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Magistrate Judge Mann’s R&R found multiple defects with Defendants’ Notice of Removal. 1 Case 1:22-cv-06138-FB-RLM Document 6 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 148 Magistrate Mann’s R&R stated that failure to object within fourteen days of the date of the R&R waives the right to appeal. No objections were filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). No such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R. SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block____________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York November 21, 2022 2

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?