Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Farhod Karimov, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel T. Feld , Daniel T Feld P.A..
Farhod Karimov, Plaintiff, represented by Isaac Jackie Mamane , Mamane Law LLC.
Nasiba Jumaeva, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel T. Feld , Daniel T Feld P.A. & Isaac Jackie Mamane , Mamane Law LLC.
Ugiloy Jumaeva, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel T. Feld , Daniel T Feld P.A. & Isaac Jackie Mamane , Mamane Law LLC.
Zarif Khursandov, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel T. Feld , Daniel T Feld P.A. & Isaac Jackie Mamane , Mamane Law LLC.
OBK Center Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ruben Martin Saenz , Saenz & Anderson, PLLC.
Irina Eliutina, Defendant, represented by Ruben Martin Saenz , Saenz & Anderson, PLLC.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34], entered on May 26, 2017. Plaintiffs filed this action on January 25, 2017, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. [ECF No. 1]. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings and to Compel Arbitration on March 20th, requesting that the Court stay this action and order the parties to arbitrate based on the fact that each Plaintiff signed a mandatory and binding arbitration agreement [ECF No. 16].1 This Court referred the action to Judge Otazo-Reyes on April 19, 2017 [ECF No. 23].
Following a hearing on May 26th, Judge Otazo-Reyes entered the instant Report and Recommendation, which recommends that (1) the Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied; (2) the Defendants' motion to stay be granted; and (3) the parties be directed to proceed to arbitration. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due June 9, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and recommendation for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. The Court has undertaken this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and recommendations stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;
(2) the Defendants' motion to stay [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED IN PART. The Plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their written agreements to arbitrate. The Defendants' motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims; and
(3) this action shall be STAYED pending completion of arbitration and shall be administratively closed during the pendency of the stay. Plaintiffs or Defendants may move to reopen the case at the appropriate time.
DONE AND ORDERED.