Davella v. Ellis Hospital, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
DENISE DAVELLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs. 1:20-CV-726
(MAD/MJK)
ELLIS HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a
Ellis Medicine,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL, ESQ.
KONECKY LLP ORI EDELSTEIN, ESQ.
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 JOHN. J. NESTICO, ESQ.
Emeryville, California 94608 ROBERT E. MORELLI, III, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC MICHAEL D. BILLOK, ESQ.
268 Broadway, Suite 104
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Attorney for Defendant
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC ERIC M. O'BRYAN, ESQ.
22 Corporate Woods Boulevard, Suite 501
Albany, New York 12211
Attorney for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff Denise Davella ("Davella"), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
("Plaintiff"), filed this action against Defendant Ellis Hospital, d/b/a/ Ellis Medicine
("Defendant"), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York
Labor Law for Defendant's failure to pay its employees full compensation. See Dkt. No. 88. On
Case 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-MJK Document 226 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
August 5, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to strike an opt-in Plaintiff from participating in this
action based on the timing of that Plaintiff's submission. See Dkt. No. 215. Plaintiff responded in
opposition. See Dkt. No. 217.
On October 2, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz issued a Report-Recommendation
recommending that the Court deny Defendant's motion to strike. See Dkt. No. 221. Neither party
filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation. When a party declines to file objections to a
magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court reviews the report-recommendation
for clear error. See Hamilton v. Colvin, 8 F. Supp. 3d 232, 236 (N.D.N.Y. 2013). After the
appropriate review, "the court 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).
Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation, the parties' filings, and the applicable law,
the Court does not discern any clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz' recommendation to deny
Defendant's motion to strike. Magistrate Judge Katz adequately analyzed the factors courts
generally consider when deciding whether to strike an opt-in plaintiff: (1) whether "good cause"
exists for a late submission; (2) prejudice to the defendant; (3) length of delay; (4) judicial
economy; and (5) the remedial purposes of the FLSA. See Dkt. No. 221 at 4 (quoting Ruggles v.
Wellpoint, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 30, 37 (N.D.N.Y. 2009)).1 The Court finds no clear error in
Magistrate Judge Katz' analysis of these factors and agrees that, in large part, because the opt-in
Plaintiff provided a signed declaration explaining her efforts to earlier opt-in and the discovery
phase is ongoing, striking the opt-in Plaintiff is not warranted.
1 The Court notes that it appears the Second Circuit has not commented on the use of these
factors. Rather, "the caselaw on this issue is wide-ranging [and district] courts have generally
decided the question by balancing various combinations of the" five factors." Ruggles, 687 F.
Supp. 2d at 37.
Case 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-MJK Document 226 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 221) is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 215) is DENIED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in
accordance with Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-MJK Document 226 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3