Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc. et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendations re: 12 Motion to Strike filed by Richard Mgrdechian, Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc., 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by Richard Mgrdechian, Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc: The Report is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 10), and Defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from, the original complaint, (ECF No. 12), are DENIED as moot, without prejudice to the motions directed to the amended complaint. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/16/2018) (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

-againstPURPLE EAGLE ENTERTAINMENT, and
RICHARD MGRDECHIAN,

18 Civ. 5205 (GBD) (HBP)

Defendants.

---- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff David Bray brings this action asserting various causes of action against
Defendant Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc. and its principal, Defendant Richard Mrgdechian, arising
from Bray's employment as a member of Madison Rising, a rock band created and funded by
Defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman
for general pretrial management and dispositive motions.

(ECF No. 16.)

Before this Court is

Magistrate Judge Pitman's September 27, 2018 Report and Recommendation, (the "Report," ECF No.
38), recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint, (ECF No. 10), and
Defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from that complaint, (ECF No. 12), be denied as moot
in light of the filing of an amended complaint.' (Report at 1 (citing Am. Compl., ECF No. 19).)
In his Report, Magistrate Judge Pitman informed the parties that the failure to file timely
objections would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Report at 2.) No objections have
been filed. Accordingly, the Report is reviewed clear error. See Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d

1

Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss, (ECF No. 21), and to strike, (ECF No. 23), directed at the
amended complaint.

342, 346--47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The Report correctly found that the original complaint was superseded
by the filing of the amended complaint. (Report at 1.)
The Report is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 10), and Defendants'
motion to strike certain allegations from, the original complaint, (ECF No. 12), are DENIED as moot,
without prejudice to the motions directed to the amended complaint.
Dated: October 16, 2018
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.

~e,Y~
RO.DANIELS
United States District Judge

2