Rahman v. Red Chili Indian Cafe, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-05156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Rahman v. Red Chili Indian Cafe, Judge Abrams extended defendants’ objection deadline to January 27, 2021, without deciding the recommended sanctions.
The order directly affected defendants Mohammed Mojnu Miah and Noor Islam by extending their deadline to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It also affected plaintiffs Mahfujur Rahman and Liton Shah, who were pursuing wage-related claims and a possible default judgment.
What happened
In Rahman v. Red Chili Indian Cafe, Inc., plaintiffs sought unpaid wages and related relief from the restaurant and two individual defendants. A magistrate judge recommended striking the individual defendants’ answer because they repeatedly missed court appearances and failed to provide required discovery, and recommended that plaintiffs seek a default judgment.
The individual defendants did not specifically object to that recommendation. Defendant Mohammed Mojnu Miah sent a letter that the court treated as a timely request for more time to object. The court gave the defendants until January 27, 2021, to file written objections and said no further extensions would be granted.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also explained that the court does not provide free translations in civil cases between private parties. This order did not decide whether to strike the answer or enter a default judgment; it addressed the deadline for objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The detailed version
- Rahman v. Red Chili Indian Cafe, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-05156
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Mahfujur Rahman and Liton Shah brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning alleged unpaid wages and other employment-related violations at Red Chili Indian Cafe. The defendants named in the caption were Red Chili Indian Cafe, Inc., Mohammed Mojnu Miah, also known as Sheikh Mohammed Mojnu, and Noor Islam, also known as Mohammed Harun Miah.
The individual defendants, proceeding without lawyers, had repeatedly failed to attend court proceedings and comply with discovery orders. A magistrate judge previously recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendants’ answer be granted and that plaintiffs be directed to seek a default judgment against Miah and Islam. The report and recommendation was mailed to the defendants on November 25, 2020.
The January 6, 2021 Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) generally gives a party 14 days after service of a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition to object. When service is by mail, the deadline is extended to 17 days under Rule 6(d).
Miah sent a December 10, 2020 letter referring to the report but making no specific objections. Judge Abrams construed the letter as a timely request for an extension of the deadline to file written objections. The court extended the deadline for the defendants to object to January 27, 2021. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted and warned that failing to object on time would waive objections and prevent appellate review of the recommendation.
Translation Request
The order addressed Miah’s request for translation and stated that the court does not provide free translations of documents in civil cases between private parties. The order also identified a New York legal clinic that assists people representing themselves in federal civil cases, while noting that the clinic is not part of or operated by the court.
Effect of the Order
The order directed that copies be mailed to Miah and Islam and that a plaintiff email a copy to the individual defendants. It did not itself adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation, strike the defendants’ answer, or enter a default judgment. It ruled on the timing and procedure for filing objections to that recommendation.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.