Saiyed v. Archon, Inc. et al
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 71) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Docket Entries 20, 22) is DENIED as to Archon Dist ribution, Inc. until the Court can inquire further into whether service of process was proper. Plaintiff's motion is also DENIED as to Archon, Inc. with leave to renew its motion along with a memorandum of law with applicable case law and argume nts in support. The Clerk of the Court is directed to VACATE the entry of default against Mohammed Ashif "Mike" Gajra and he is GRANTED twenty (20) days from the date of this Memorandum & Order to Answer. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/7/2016. C/ECF; C/M (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
AMJAD SAIYED, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-6862(JS)(ARL)
-againstARCHON, INC., ARCHON DISTRIBUTION,
INC., RASHID PATEL, MOHAMMED ASHIF
“MIKE” GAJRA, and JOHN/JANE DOES
“1–10”,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Michael Joseph Romano, Esq.
Romano & Associates
220 Old Country Rd., 1st Fl.
Mineola, NY 11501
For Defendants:
Archon, Inc., Archon
Distribution, Inc.,
and Rashid Patel
Mohammed Ashif “Mike”
Gajra:
John/Janes Does
“1” – “10”
Rashid Patel, pro se
316 Ropes Rd.
Englewood, NJ 07632
Mohammed Ashif Gajra, pro se
202 N. Fairview Ave.
Paramus, NJ 07652
No Appearance.
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for
a default judgment (Docket Entries 20, 22), and (2) Magistrate
Judge
Arlene
R.
Lindsay’s
Report
and
Recommendation
(“R&R”),
recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment (R&R, Docket Entry 71).
For the following reasons, the
Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
On
November
21,
2014,
Plaintiff
filed
this
lawsuit
against Archon, Inc., Archon Distribution, Inc., Rashid Patel
(“Patel”), Mohammed Ashif “Mike” Gajra (“Gajra”) and John and Jane
Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”).
(Compl., Docket Entry 1.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to pay him minimum wages
and “engag[ed] in systematic mistreatment of Plaintiff,” among
other things.1
(Compl. ¶¶ 52-57.)
Plaintiff asserts eight causes
of action: (i) two claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization
Act,
(ii) one
for material
claim
18
U.S.C.
§§
1589-90
(Compl.
misrepresentations
and
¶¶ 76-94);
omissions
(Compl. ¶¶ 95-104); (iii) one claim for failure to pay proper wages
under Fair Labor Standards Act (Compl. ¶¶ 105-15); (iv) three
claims for failure to pay proper wages under the New York Labor
Law (Compl. ¶¶ 116-34); and (v) one claim for quantum meruit
(Compl. ¶¶ 135-37).
One month later, Patel filed an answer on behalf of all
Defendants.
(Answer, Docket Entry 8, at 1.)
Judge Lindsay
informed Patel that he “does not have legal authority to represent
Plaintiff asserts that this case is a class action lawsuit,
(Compl. ¶ 1), but currently, no class has been certified.
1
2
the other individual and corporate defendants,” thereby nullifying
Patel’s answer as to any other party but him.
Entry, Docket Entry 15.)
(Apr. 8, 2015 Minute
Archon, Inc., Archon Distribution, Inc.,
and Gajra failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise defend
themselves, so the Clerk of the Court certified the default against
them on April 16, 2015.
(Docket Entry 19.)
Eight days later, Plaintiff moved for default judgment
against all Defendants except for Patel.
(Docket Entry 20.)2
On
July 6, 2015, the undersigned referred Plaintiff’s motion to Judge
Lindsay for an R&R as to whether the motion should be granted.
Judge
Lindsay
issued
her
R&R
on
January
20,
2016,
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment against Archon Distribution, Inc. until the Court further
inquires into whether service of process was proper.
8.)
(R&R at 6-
Judge Lindsay also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s
motion
for
default
judgment
against
Archon,
Inc.
but
grant
Plaintiff leave to renew its motion and file a memorandum of law
with applicable case law and arguments in support.
(R&R at 9-12.)
Judge Lindsay further recommends that the Court vacate the Clerk’s
entry of default against Gajra and that he be granted twenty (20)
days to Answer.
(R&R at 8-9.)
Plaintiff filed a corrected notice of motion on April 30, 2015.
(Docket Entry 22.)
2
3
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,
or
modify,
recommendations
in
made
by
whole
the
or
in
part,
magistrate
the
findings
judge.”
28
and
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.
Thus, all objections are deemed to be waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge 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, Judge Lindsay’s R&R (Docket
Entry 71) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment (Docket Entries 20, 22) is DENIED as to Archon
Distribution, Inc. until the Court can inquire further into whether
service of process was proper.
Plaintiff’s motion is also DENIED
as to Archon, Inc. with leave to renew its motion along with a
memorandum of law with applicable case law and arguments in
support.
4
The Clerk of the Court is directed to VACATE the entry
of default against Mohammed Ashif “Mike” Gajra and he is GRANTED
twenty (20) days from the date of this Memorandum & Order to
Answer.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
March
7 , 2016
Central Islip, New York
5
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?