UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 23-80916-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart LISANDRO ROVIRA on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, v.

TRATTORIA ROMANA, INC.,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 59]. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED [ECF No. 59]. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] is DENIED. *** On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint in this matter, alleging violations of the Florida Minimum Wage Act (“FMWA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) [ECF No. 1]. Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 22]; Plaintiff filed an Opposition [51]; and Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No. 55]. On January 25, 2024, following referral [ECF No. 46], Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a Report recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 59]. Neither party objects to the Report [ECF Nos. 62, 63]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones,

, 822 CASE NO. 23-80916-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort,

. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). Following review, the Court finds no clear error of law or fact in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 59] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 22] is DENIED in accordance with the Report. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of February 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record