Denise Davella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ellis Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Ellis Medicine

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 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 . 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 A) 4 if □□ □ Ges : Albany, New York Mae A. al DU U.S. District Judge