Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Green Lantern Inn, Inc.

Filing 119

DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons discussed, the Court adopts Judge Pedersen's 114 Report and Recommendation denying as moot 42 Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and granting 85 Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant's counterclaims. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 9/8/21. (ALJ)

Case 6:19-cv-06704-FPG-MJP Document 119 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case # 19-CV-6704-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER

GREEN LANTERN INN, INC.,

Defendant.

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
commenced an enforcement action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071
(“Title I”), against Defendant Green Lantern Inn, Inc. ECF No. 1. The Court referred this case to
United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive
motions. ECF No. 7. Specifically, on June 10, 2021, the Court referred Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 42, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Counterclaims, ECF No. 85, to Judge Pedersen for report and recommendation. 1 ECF No. 92.
On August 18, 2021, Judge Pedersen issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), ECF
No. 112. On August 19, 2021, Judge Pedersen issued an amended report and recommendation
(“Amended R&R”), ECF No. 114, in which he recommends that the Court find Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 42, moot, and further recommends that the
Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaims, ECF No. 85. Judge Pedersen
indicated that the parties had 14 days after receipt of the Amended R&R to file objections to it,

In addition to issuing a report and recommendation on the dispositive motions, the Court referred ECF Nos. 49, 83,
84, and 90, to Judge Pedersen for Decision and Order. Pursuant to Judge Pedersen’s Amended R&R, the court: (1)
RESERVED on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 49; (2) GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Expenses,
ECF No. 83; (3) GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses and allegations, ECF No. 84; (4)
and GRANTED IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 90.

1

Case 6:19-cv-06704-FPG-MJP Document 119 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3

specifically noting such objections were due by September 7, 2021. ECF No. 114. As of
September 8, 2021, the Court has received no objections to the Amended R&R nor has the Court
received any requests for extensions of time to object.
Generally, a court reviews portions of an R&R to which a party makes specific objections
de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party does not object to the
R&R, however, the court will review it for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC, 272
F. Supp. 3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. &
Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)). “When performing such a ‘clear
error’ review, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 686
(N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, the
court 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)(C).
The Court reviewed Judge Pedersen’s Amended R&R and finds no clear error and therefore
accepts and adopts the Amended R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 42, is DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Counterclaims, ECF No. 85, is GRANTED. Additionally, the Court reviewed the
underlying briefing regarding the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF
No. 42, and does not believe it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Nevertheless,
Defendant is not barred from asserting such an argument at a later date if it so chooses. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Case 6:19-cv-06704-FPG-MJP Document 119 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3

Dated: September 8, 2021
Rochester, New York

______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Court Judge
Western District of New York

3