Spataro v. Government Employers Insurance Company et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 37) and DENIES the parties' joint motion for settlement approval (Docket Entry 36). However, the parties a re GRANTED leave to renew their motion with the appropriate supporting documentation regarding attorneys' fees within sixty (60) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 4/11/2017. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------X CHRISTOPHER SPATARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, -against– MEMORANDUM & ORDER 13-CV-5020(JS)(ARL) GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. ----------------------------------------X APPEARANCES For Plaintiff: Andrew P. Bell, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 For Defendants: Eric Hemmendinger, Esq. Shawe & Rosenthal LLP 20 S. Charles St., Suite 1102 Baltimore, MD 21201 Barry I. Levy, Esq. Greg Mann, Esq. Scott R. Green, Esq. Rivkin Radler LLP 926 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 SEYBERT, District Judge: Presently pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation dated October 28, 2016, (the “R&R,” Docket Entry 37), recommending that this Court deny the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval with leave to renew. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lindsay’s R&R in its entirety. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2013, plaintiff Christopher Spataro (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action, asserting claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. generally Compl.) On October 28, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion requesting approval of their settlement agreement. Mot., Docket (See Entry 36.) The parties’ settlement (See agreement provides, in relevant part, that Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive a total of $4,701.33 in costs and attorneys’ fees. (Settlement Agmt., Docket Entry 36-1, ¶ 1.) On January 17, 2017, Judge Lindsay issued her R&R. Judge Lindsay found that “the settlement agreement reflects a reasonable compromise over contested issues.” marks and citation omitted).) (R&R at 5 (internal quotation However, Judge Lindsay recommended that the parties’ motion be denied with leave to renew based on their failure to submit contemporaneous time records, counsel’s retainer agreement, or information regarding billing attorneys’ credentials and experience. (R&R at 6.) DISCUSSION In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 2 the findings and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has objected. Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to have been waived. Court finds Judge Upon careful review and consideration, the Lindsay’s R&R to be comprehensive, well- reasoned, and free of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lindsay’s R&R (Docket Entry 37) and DENIES the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval (Docket Entry 36). parties are GRANTED leave to renew their However, the motion with the appropriate supporting documentation regarding attorneys’ fees within sixty (60) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. SO ORDERED. /s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______ Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J. Dated: April 11 , 2017 Central Islip, New York 3

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?