Abuladze et al v. Apple Commuter, Inc.. et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Dismiss. No objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window. The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978 (CS ) (GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a "district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of th e record."). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts the R&R in its entirety. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as to all Defendants except Defendants Apple and Shah, and leave to amend is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 62. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/7/2024) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
KAKHA ABULADZE, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
-against:
:
APPLE COMMUTER INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 2/7/2024

1:22-cv-8684-GHW-GS
ORDER

On January 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the Moving Hotel Defendants’
12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 81. 1 In that R&R, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky
determined that (1) Plaintiffs did not fail to serve a necessary and indispensable party, (2) Plaintiffs’
FLSA and some of Plaintiffs’ NYLL claims are time-barred, (3) Plaintiffs adequately pleaded that the
Hotel Defendants were their joint employers, (4) the Moving Hotel Defendants are not exempt
under the taxicab exception to FLSA and the NYLL, (5) Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims should
be dismissed, (6) Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed, (7) Plaintiffs’ collective
action and class action allegations should not be dismissed, and (8) leave to amend should be denied.
See generally id.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the report and
recommendation within fourteen days of receiving a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

Capitalized terms herein take on the meaning prescribed in the R&R.

72(b)(2). The Court reviews for clear error those parts of the report and recommendation to which
no party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811
(S.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objection to the R&R was submitted within the fourteen-day window. The Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. See Braunstein v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978 (CS)
(GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009) (explaining that a “district court may adopt
those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections have been made, as long as
no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.”). The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts
the R&R in its entirety. For the reasons articulated in the R&R, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part as to all Defendants except Defendants Apple and Shah, and leave
to amend is denied.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 62.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2