Rose v. Living
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:25-cv-03234
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Rose v. Enriched Living, LLC, Judge Blackwell granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing a national origin discrimination claim and one other count to proceed.
Employees or job applicants who may have claims involving disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, reprisal, or national origin discrimination against employers — particularly those whose cases involve multiple legal theories, some of which may survive a motion to dismiss while others do not.
What happened
In Benjamin Rose v. Enriched Living, LLC (Case No. 25-3234, District of Minnesota), plaintiff Benjamin Rose sued defendant Enriched Living, LLC on multiple counts. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 14, 2026, recommending partial dismissal of the case. No party objected to that recommendation within the allowed time.
The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation addressed Enriched Living's motion to dismiss six counts. The report recommended dismissing several counts entirely — Counts II, III, V, and VI — and recommended dismissing most of Count IV, which included claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal. However, the report recommended keeping Count I alive, and also recommended keeping the portion of Count IV that asserts a national origin discrimination claim.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error (the standard that applies when no objections are filed) and found none. Judge Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and ruled on Enriched Living's motion to dismiss: the motion was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing Counts II, III, V, VI, and most of Count IV, while allowing Count I and the national origin discrimination portion of Count IV to continue.
The detailed version
- Rose v. Living · No. 0:25-cv-03234
- Ann Montgomery
- Aug. 25, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Benjamin Rose filed suit against defendant Enriched Living, LLC in the District of Minnesota. The complaint contained at least six counts. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts giving rise to the lawsuit beyond the nature of the claims addressed in the motion to dismiss.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 14, 2026, addressing Enriched Living's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 34). No party filed objections to the R&R within the time allowed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard that requires a more obvious mistake than the typical de novo (fresh, independent) review applied when objections are filed.
Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The court's ruling on Enriched Living's Motion to Dismiss was as follows:
Counts Dismissed - Counts II, III, V, and VI: The motion to dismiss was granted as to all four of these counts. The opinion does not describe the specific legal theories underlying these counts. - Count IV (in part): The motion was granted as to the claims within Count IV for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal.
Claims Allowed to Proceed - Count I: The motion to dismiss was denied, meaning this count survives and may continue toward further proceedings. - Count IV (in part): The motion was denied as to the claim within Count IV for national origin discrimination. This claim also survives.
Disposition
The overall Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The R&R was accepted. The case will proceed on Count I and the national origin discrimination portion of Count IV.
Notes on the Record
The opinion is an order accepting an R&R and does not itself set out the underlying facts, the statutory bases for each count, or the magistrate judge's reasoning. Readers seeking the full legal analysis would need to consult the R&R (Doc. No. 50).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.