Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Hamra Law Group
-
Order | Filed: April 18, 2024 | Entered: April 18, 2024 Martinez et. al. v. Installation, Service & Repair, Inc. et. al.
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
1 - Terminate Hearings
SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion to adjourn 55 is GRANTED. The status conference scheduled for April 24, 2024, is ADJOURNED sine die. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 4/18/2024. (CG)
-
Order | Filed: April 18, 2024 | Entered: April 18, 2024 Martinez et. al. v. Installation, Service & Repair, Inc. et. al.
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern
Status Report Order
ORDER: On January 5, 2024, Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for Defendants and warned Defendant Edgar Aguilar that failure to retain a new attorney to represent his company, Defendant Installation, Service & Repair, Inc., will result in a default judgment against that defendant. To date Defendant Installation, Service & Repair, Inc. remains unrepresented by counsel. Defendant Installation, Service & Repair, Inc. shall retain counsel by May 16, 2024. Failure to do so will result in a default judgment entered against Installation, Service & Repair, Inc. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 4/18/2024. (CG)
-
Motion | Filed: April 18, 2024 | Entered: April 18, 2024 Burke v. Fien Coffee
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other | New York Eastern
Sua Sponte - Report and Recommendations
SUA SPONTE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons set forth in the attached Report and Recommendation, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Retrospective Goods, LLC v. T&M Invs. Int'l, LLC, No. 20-CV-6201 (AMD) (RER), 2022 WL 2161935, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-6201 (AMD) (RER), 2022 WL 2161384 (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2022).
Objections to this Report and Recommendation are due by 5/2/2024. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate [judge's] report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate [judge's] decision" (quotation marks omitted).). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 4/18/2024. (ES)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login