Cruz v. Ultimate Care, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On December 12, 2022, the plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated for the defendant’s failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to a stipulation with the defendant, the
plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 22, 2023, adding claims under New York
Labor Law (“NYLL”). (ECF No. 48.) The defendant moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the Court denied without prejudice to renew after completion of discovery.
(ECF No. 66; ECF Minute Entry dated Mar. 20, 2024.) After some discovery, the parties
stipulated to allow the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 126), which the
plaintiffs filed on July 18, 2024 (ECF No. 130). After conducting additional discovery, on July
14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 160),
which the defendants opposed on August 18, 2025 (ECF No. 162). On December 31, 2025,
Magistrate Judge Lara Eskenazi issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
MAYRA CRUZ and RAUL HERRERA,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
– against –
ULTIMATE CARE, INC.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
22-CV-7520 (AMD) (LKE)
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
Case 1:22-cv-07520-AMD-LKE Document 182 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court deny the motion. (ECF No. 178.) No party has filed an objection to the report and
recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.1
A district court reviewing a report and recommendation “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). To accept a report and recommendation to which no timely objection has been
made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” VOX Amplification Ltd. v. Meussdorffer, 50 F. Supp. 3d 355, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
(citation omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Eshkenazi’s well-reasoned report and
recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and
recommendation in its entirety. The plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
is denied.
SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 28, 2026
1 Instead, on January 9, 2026, the defendant notified the Court that the parties reached a settlement in
principle. (ECF No. 179.) On January 23, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for settlement approval.
(ECF No. 181.)
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Case 1:22-cv-07520-AMD-LKE Document 182 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>