Alston v. Centerpark Services LLC
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-07393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alston v. Centerpark Services LLC, Judge Vargas adopted a recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied through adoption of Magistrate Judge Moses’s recommendation; the plaintiffs’ amended complaint was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Alston v. Centerpark Services LLC, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of authority to hear the case and for failure to state a valid claim.
Magistrate Judge Moses recommended denying that motion. The parties were given 14 days to object, but no objections or extension request was filed.
Judge Vargas adopted the recommendation in full after reviewing it and finding it thorough and well reasoned. The court directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 31.
The detailed version
- Alston v. Centerpark Services LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07393
- Vargas
- July 21, 2025
Background
On February 7, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under rules addressing subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Moses.
Report and Recommendation
On May 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Moses issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss be denied. The parties were told they had 14 days after service to file objections and were warned that failing to do so could waive their right to object.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
No party filed objections or requested more time. Judge Vargas therefore found that Defendant had waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. Even so, the court independently reviewed the recommendation and found it thorough, well reasoned, and accurate. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 31. Because the underlying motion was a motion to dismiss, this order is classified as a procedural order; the opinion does not reproduce the Report and Recommendation’s detailed analysis of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.