Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Margarita Escobedo v. Ram Shirdi

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


September 12, 2012

MARGARITA ESCOBEDO
v.
RAM SHIRDI, INC., ET AL.

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Mason's report and recommendation [155] and denies Plaintiff Margarita Escobedo's motion for default judgment [120].

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices. Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Margarita Escobedo ("Escobedo") has sued corporate Defendants Ram Shirdi, Inc. and American Hotel Partners, Inc. ("Defendants"), as well as individual defendant Pervez Akhtar ("Akhtar"), alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Court entered an order of default against Akhtar on August 10, 2011, after he failed to respond to Plaintiff's complaint despite numerous extensions of time to do so. Plaintiff's complaint details lurid sexual harassment allegedly committed by a manager at her place of employment followed by negative consequences to Plaintiff when she refused Defendant Akhtar's advances. Plaintiff also alleges that the corporate Defendants had knowledge of Akhtar's ongoing harassment and permitted it to continue.

The Court previously referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mason to conduct any necessary proceedings and issue a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendants [120], in which Plaintiff alleges, among other things, witness tampering and failure to comply with the Court's discovery orders. Magistrate Judge Mason promptly addressed the referral, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and issued a 17-page Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2012.

This Court's review of a magistrate's report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

The statute permits objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation to be made within fourteen days of service of a copy of the report. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (setting forth procedures for objecting to a magistrate's report and recommendation and the district court's resolution of any objections). Plaintiff was advised of the rules governing reports and recommendations, including the rule that specific objections must be served and filed within 14 days from the date that the report is issued and the fact that the failure to file objections with the District Court within the specified time will result in waiver of the right to appeal all findings, factual and legal, made by the court in the Report and Recommendation. See Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th Cir. 1995).

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Mason recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied. As of the date of this order, no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed, and the time for making objections has now passed. Having carefully reviewed the thorough Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge Mason, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [155] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [120].

20120912

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.