Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-03928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Francisco v. Exclusive Management, Judge Torres adopted a report, granted defendants’ dismissal motion in part, and denied it in part.
The ruling dismissed Francisco and Bravo’s breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, and unpaid-call-in-pay claims, while leaving the defendants’ motion denied as to all other claims.
What happened
Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo sued Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., other corporations, and Dmitriy Berezovsky over alleged violations of federal and New York wage laws, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Defendants asked the court to dismiss the case. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended granting that request in part and denying it in part; no party objected to his recommendation.
Judge Analisa Torres found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court dismissed the claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unpaid call-in pay, while denying the motion as to all other claims.
The detailed version
- Francisco v. Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03928
- Analisa Torres
- July 28, 2025
Background
Herlinda Francisco and Javier Bravo brought the action on behalf of themselves, federal wage-law collective plaintiffs, and the class. They sued Exclusive Management Solution Group, Inc., fifty unidentified corporations, and Dmitriy Berezovsky, also identified as Dmitry Berezovskiy.
The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law; 26 U.S.C. § 7434; and the New York Labor Law. It also asserted claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation advising that the defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were notified that they could object, but no objections were filed before the deadline.
Because there were no objections, Judge Torres reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. She found no clear error in the report.
Ruling
Judge Torres adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court DISMISSED the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unpaid call-in pay. In all other respects, the motion to dismiss was DENIED.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.