Euceda v. Preesha Operating Corp. et al
| Adan Euceda |
| Rakesh Chadha, Preesha One Operating LLC and Preesha Operating Corp. |
| 2:2014cv03143 |
| May 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| William D. Wall |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
30
ADOPTION ORDER - On June 30, 2017, Judge Locke issued a report and recommendation (the R&R) recommending that the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs be granted; that the Plaintiff be awarded $7,350 in attorneys fees and $350 in costs for a total of $7,700; and that the remainder of the Plaintiffs application be denied without prejudice with leave to renew upon providing the appropriate supporting documentation. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of t he R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its resul t. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/18/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
