RAMIREZ
v.
TD DANS CORP.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation and adopted it, denying plaintiff William Ramirez's motion to enforce a settlement agreement under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. The District Court adopted the magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation, finding it well reasoned and correct.
“Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's R&R to be well reasoned and correct.”
The District Court's affirmation of the magistrate judge's reasoning and recommendation to deny the motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff William Ramirez filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein for a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff William Ramirez' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“the Motion”) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201- 219, ECF No. [25]. The Plaintiff's Motion was previously referred to the Honorable Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. [28]. On September 16, 2024, Judge Elfenbein issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, ECF No. [32].
The R&R advised the parties that objections to the R&R shall be filed with the District Judge within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of the report. Id. at 8. To date, neither party has filed objections, nor have the parties sought additional time to file objections. The Court has, nonetheless, conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the record in this case and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The
Case No. 23-cv-20820-BLOOM/Elfenbein
Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiffs Motion must be denied for the reasons set forth therein.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The R&R, ECF No. [32] is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, ECF No. [25], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 3, 2024.
BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record