Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:21-cv-09014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction: Judge Clarke adopted a recommendation, denied dismissal of Kelco Landscaping claims, and granted dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action with leave to replead.
The plaintiffs may continue pursuing the claims against Kelco Landscaping, but the Fourth Cause of Action was dismissed and may be repleaded. The defendants’ partial motion to dismiss was otherwise denied as to the claims against Kelco Landscaping.
What happened
In Carlos Alvarez Chicas et al. v. Kelco Construction, Inc. et al., the defendants asked the court to partially dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. A magistrate judge recommended denying dismissal of claims against Kelco Landscaping and granting dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action, while allowing the plaintiffs to replead that cause of action.
No party objected to the recommendation or requested more time to do so. The court independently reviewed the recommendation and found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Kelco Landscaping and Kelco Construction operated as a single integrated enterprise. But the court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately identified the contracts, contracting parties, and contract provisions supporting their claimed third-party-beneficiary rights under the Fourth Cause of Action.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The motion was denied as to the claims against Kelco Landscaping and granted as to the Fourth Cause of Action, with leave for the plaintiffs to replead that cause of action.
The detailed version
- Alvarez Chicas v. Kelco Construction, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09014
- Clarke
- Aug. 16, 2023
Background
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Aaron, who issued a Report and Recommendation on July 25, 2023.
The recommendation addressed two parts of the motion. It recommended denying the request to dismiss claims asserted against Kelco Landscaping, Inc. It also recommended granting the request to dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action, but allowing the plaintiffs to replead that cause of action.
Objections and Review
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections or requests for an extension were filed. The court therefore found that the parties waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review of it.
Even so, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged, under the applicable four-factor test, that Kelco Landscaping acted as a single integrated enterprise with Kelco Construction.
Fourth Cause of Action
The court reached a different conclusion about the Fourth Cause of Action. It found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded the contracts under which they claimed third-party-beneficiary rights, the parties to those contracts, or the relevant contract provisions.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The partial motion to dismiss was denied insofar as it sought dismissal of claims against Kelco Landscaping, Inc., and granted insofar as it sought dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action. The plaintiffs were granted leave to replead the Fourth Cause of Action. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 149.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.