Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hernandez v. Professional Maintenance & Cleaning Contractors Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 8, 2015

SIMON HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE & CLEANING CONTRACTORS INC. and MARTHA F. NARANJO, Defendants.

ROBERT L. KRASELNICK, New York, NY, For the Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge.

On September 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that default judgment be entered against defendant Professional Maintenance & Cleaning Contractors Inc. ("PMCC") in the amount of $88, 281.90, consisting of $40, 870 in overtime wages, $15, 272.40 in unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, $30, 049.50 in liquidated damages, and $2, 090 in attorneys' fees and expenses, plus pre-judgment interest of $14, 325.85 and post-judgment interest calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. R&R at 16-17. The R&R also recommended that plaintiff's suit against defendant Martha F. Naranjo ("Naranjo") be dismissed for failure to prosecute. R&R at 14-15. The R&R directed plaintiff to serve defendants with a copy of the R&R and provided that failure to object within fourteen days of receipt would preclude appellate review. See id. at 17. Defendants were served a copy of the R&R on September 15, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000)

Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. However, the interest calculation must be updated to account for the passage of time since the R&R was issued. From the date of the R&R to the date of this Order, the total amount of interest accrued is $1, 067.93. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment (1) against defendant PMCC in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $88, 281.90, plus pre-judgment interest of $15, 393.78 and post-judgment interest calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961; and (2) dismissing defendant Naranjo.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.