Florez v. L & C Brand Realty Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- Judge Levy's R&R 14 is fully adopted as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 10 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in pa rt. Defendants are deemed liable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. Plaintiff's request for an injunction ordering defendants to make their facilities ADA compliant is DENIED only insofar as it seeks to close defendants' restaurant during remediation, but is otherwise GRANTED as follows: (1) defendants are to provide plaintiff's counsel an architecture plan that remedies the violations identified in plain tiff's complaint within sixty (60) days of this order; (2) plaintiff will then have within thirty (30) days from receipt of defendants' plans to consent or seek further relief from the Court; and (3) defendants shall then implement the plan s and remedy any violations within sixty (60) days of plaintiff's consent or any ruling on plaintiff's request(s) for further relief. Finally, plaintiff is granted leave to file a motion for attorney's fees within thirty (30) days of this Order. ORDER ATTACHED. Ordered by Judge Natasha C. Merle on 8/29/2024. (AG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS RUIZ FLOREZ,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
24-cv-00543 (NCM) (RML)

– against –
L & C BRAND REALTY INC. and SOKO-LYA
CAFE INC.,
Defendants.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the instant
case dated July 29, 2024, from the Honorable Robert M. Levy, United States Magistrate
Judge. No objections have been filed.
The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has
been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Brissett v. Manhattan &
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-cv-00874, 2011 WL 1930682, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no
timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No.
17-cv-00371, 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Est. of Ellington
ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)).
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, Judge
Levy’s R&R is fully adopted as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

1

Defendants are deemed liable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. Plaintiff’s request for an injunction ordering defendants
to make their facilities ADA compliant is DENIED only insofar as it seeks to close
defendants’ restaurant during remediation, but is otherwise GRANTED as follows: (1)
defendants are to provide plaintiff’s counsel an architecture plan that remedies the
violations identified in plaintiff’s complaint within sixty (60) days of this order; (2)
plaintiff will then have within thirty (30) days from receipt of defendants’ plans to consent
or seek further relief from the Court; and (3) defendants shall then implement the plans
and remedy any violations within sixty (60) days of plaintiff’s consent or any ruling on
plaintiff’s request(s) for further relief. Finally, plaintiff is granted leave to file a motion for
attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of this Order.
SO ORDERED.

__/s/ Natasha C. Merle___
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated:

August 29, 2024
Brooklyn, New York

2