Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 18, 2023

Donet v. Isamax Snacks, Inc.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:23-cv-01286
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Donet v. Isamax Snacks, Judge Engelmayer denied Isamax’s motion to dismiss and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Who this affects

Maricela Donet and the proposed group of similarly situated plaintiffs may continue beyond this motion; Isamax Snacks, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was denied.

What happened

In Donet v. Isamax Snacks, Inc., Isamax asked the court to dismiss Maricela Donet’s First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim. The complaint was brought by Donet individually and on behalf of others described as similarly situated.

A magistrate judge recommended denying Isamax’s motion. Neither party objected to that recommendation, so the district court reviewed it for clear error—whether an obvious mistake appeared in the record.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found no such error, adopted the recommendation in full, and denied Isamax’s motion to dismiss. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review of the recommendation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Donet v. Isamax Snacks, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01286
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Sept. 18, 2023

Background

Maricela Donet sued Isamax Snacks, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Isamax moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court’s opinion does not repeat the facts, instead incorporating the factual summary from the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended that the court deny Isamax’s motion to dismiss. Neither party submitted objections to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious error on the face of the record. The court stated that its review found no such error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object within the specified period waived objections and prevented appellate review of the recommendation.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Isamax’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 15.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.