Marte v. Westbury Mini Mart, Inc.
2:16-cv-00053
E.D.N.YMar 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Pena and Marte) sued multiple corporate and individual defendants alleging failure to pay overtime under the FLSA and NYLL.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and to sever claims under Rule 21.
- Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) on Jan. 18, 2017 recommending: dismissal of the overtime claims in the original complaint; limited leave to amend (specifically permitting Pena and Marte to assert overtime claims only as to the particular defendant/employer for the periods each worked for them); and denial of severance.
- The R&R advised parties that objections were due within 14 days and warned that failure to object would waive appellate review. No party filed objections or sought an extension.
- District Judge Feuerstein reviewed the R&R, declined to sua sponte excuse the waiver, accepted the R&R in full, granted limited leave to amend (amended complaint due March 20, 2017), dismissed the original overtime claims, and denied the severance request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reject the R&R absent objections | Objections not required to preserve substantive rulings (implicit) | R&R should be accepted because parties were warned and filed no objections | No objections were filed; waiver applies and Court accepted the R&R in full |
| Whether the original FLSA/NYLL overtime claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) challenge | Plaintiffs contended overtime claims were sufficiently pleaded | Defendants argued the complaint failed to state viable overtime claims | Court (adopting R&R) granted 12(b)(6) dismissal of the original overtime claims |
| Whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) | Plaintiffs sought broad leave to amend to pursue overtime claims against all defendants/joint employers | Defendants opposed broad amendment; sought dismissal instead | Limited leave granted: Pena and Marte may file amended claims only as to the specific defendant employer for the period each worked for that employer; other amendment requests denied |
| Whether to sever claims under Rule 21 | Plaintiffs opposed severance | Defendants sought severance | Motion to sever under Rule 21 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court need not review magistrate judge findings absent timely objection)
- Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1992) (failure to object to an R&R that includes clear notice may waive further review)
- Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2000) (court may excuse waiver in interests of justice when magistrate committed plain error or defaulted argument has substantial merit)
- Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussing waiver of objections to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008) (same)