Toro v. Medbar, Corp.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-06878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. Medbar, Corp., Judge Subramanian adopted a recommendation granting dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and closing the case.
Luis Toro, Medbar Corp., and the closed case.
What happened
In Toro v. Medbar, Corp., the court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation on motions to dismiss Luis Toro’s case against Medbar Corp. The recommendation advised granting the motion based on lack of authority to hear the case and denying the personal-jurisdiction motion as moot.
The parties were given 14 days to object, but no objections or extension request was filed. The court therefore concluded that Toro waived his right to object and to seek appellate review of the recommendation.
Judge Arun Subramanian independently reviewed the complaint, briefs, and recommendation and adopted the recommendation in full. The court directed the clerk to close the specified docket entries and the case.
The detailed version
- Toro v. Medbar, Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-06878
- Subramanian
- June 7, 2024
Background
The motions to dismiss were referred to Magistrate Judge Cott for a report and recommendation. On May 22, 2024, Judge Cott recommended granting the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. Judge Cott also recommended denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot, meaning the court did not need to decide that issue after recommending dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Objections and Review
The report and recommendation gave the parties 14 days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections were filed, and no request for more time was made. The court concluded that Luis Toro had waived the right to object to the recommendation and to obtain appellate review of it.
Even without objections, the court reviewed the complaint, the briefs, and the report and recommendation. It found the recommendation well-reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Thus, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was granted, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 14, 22, and 24, and to close the case. The opinion does not state the specific reason why subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.