ROVIRA
v.
TRATTORIA ROMANA, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A wage and hour class action brought by Lisandro Rovira against Trattoria Romana, Inc. alleging violations of the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied defendant's motion to dismiss.
The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation that the complaint adequately pleads claims under the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a party objects.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without de novo review if no objections are filed, provided there is no clear error on the face…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lisandro Rovira filed a complaint on June 15, 2023, asserting claims under the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Fair Labor Standards Act against…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 59]. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 59]. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.
***
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint in this matter, alleging violations of the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) [ECF No. 1]. Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 22]; Plaintiff filed an Opposition [51]; and Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No. 55]. On January 25, 2024, following referral [ECF No. 46], Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a Report recommending denial of Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 59]. Neither party objects to the Report [ECF Nos. 62, 63].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822
CASE NO. 23-80916-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds no clear error of law or fact in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 59] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] is DENIED in accordance with the Report.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of February 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)