Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shavis v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp., 19-CV-00484 (CBA) (LB). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20191011e39 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2019
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER CAROL BAGLEY AMON , District Judge . Plaintiff D'Asia Shavis brought this action against defendants Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp. and The Pay-O-Matic Corp. ("Defendants") alleging that they violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by requiring her to work for more than forty hours per week without paying her adequate overtime compensation. Shavis also asserts claims under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"
More

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

Plaintiff D'Asia Shavis brought this action against defendants Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp. and The Pay-O-Matic Corp. ("Defendants") alleging that they violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by requiring her to work for more than forty hours per week without paying her adequate overtime compensation. Shavis also asserts claims under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law as a result of Defendants' alleged discrimination against her based on her pregnancy and pregnancy-related leave. (D.E. # 1 at ¶¶ 1-2.) Shavis's counsel filed the parties' motion for settlement approval on June 28, 2019. (D.E. # 27.) The Court referred this motion to the Honorable Lois Bloom., for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (D.E. dated 7/19/2019.) Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that the Court grant the parties' motion for settlement approval. (D.E. # 31.)

No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district 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). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Jarvis v. N.Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F.Supp.2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants the parties' motion for settlement approval.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer