Spataro v. Government Employers Insurance Company et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER SPATARO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
Locks Law Firm PLLC
800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
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
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Lindsay’s R&R in its entirety.
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.
On October 28, 2016, the parties filed a joint
motion requesting approval of their settlement agreement.
provides, in relevant part, that Plaintiff’s counsel shall receive
a total of $4,701.33 in costs and attorneys’ fees.
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.)
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
If no timely objections have been made, the “court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
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.
Upon careful review and consideration, the
reasoned, and free of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its
Lindsay’s R&R (Docket Entry 37) and DENIES the parties’ joint
motion for settlement approval (Docket Entry 36).
appropriate supporting documentation regarding attorneys’ fees
within sixty (60) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
11 , 2017
Central Islip, New York
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?