Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-01537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp., Judge Carter dismissed the named plaintiffs and discontinued the action after no party objected.
Named plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz, Henry Flores, and Mario Flores were dismissed. The action was discontinued after the opt-in plaintiffs accepted the defendant’s Offer of Judgement, and the clerk was directed to terminate the case.
What happened
Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp. involved named plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz, Henry Flores, and Mario Flores, along with opt-in plaintiffs. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the named plaintiffs for not pursuing the case and not following court orders, then ending the action after the opt-in plaintiffs accepted the defendant’s Offer of Judgement.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. adopted the recommendation in full. He dismissed the named plaintiffs under Rule 41(b), discontinued the action because of the opt-in plaintiffs’ acceptance of the Offer of Judgement, and directed the clerk to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-01537
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for general pretrial supervision. Judge Parker issued a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2023.
The recommendation addressed two matters. First, it recommended dismissing named plaintiffs Ricardo Ortiz, Henry Flores, and Mario Flores under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute the case and failure to follow court orders. Second, it recommended discontinuing the action after the opt-in plaintiffs accepted the defendant’s Offer of Judgement.
Court’s Review
The parties were notified that they could object to the Report and Recommendation, but no objections were filed. The court stated that when no timely objections are made, it may adopt the recommendation if there is no clear error on the face of the record. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It dismissed the named plaintiffs under Rule 41(b), discontinued the action in light of the opt-in plaintiffs’ acceptance of the defendant’s Offer of Judgement, and directed the clerk to terminate the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the offer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.