UNITED STATES DISTRICT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 25-CV-20632-LENARD/Elfenbein

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

v.

ONE LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Respondent. _________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Petitioner National Labor Relations Board’s (“Petitioner”) Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [17]. In the Motion, Petitioner explains that it asked the Court to issue an Order requiring that Respondent comply with subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ. See ECF No. [17] at 1. The Court thereafter issued an Order directing Respondent to appear before this Court and show cause why an order should not issue directing Respondent to produce the requested documents. Id.; ECF No. [12]. Following the entry of the Order to Show Cause, Respondent produced documents responsive to subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ on May 2, 4, 6, and 9, 2025, and upon its review of the documents, Petitioner determined that Respondent’s production substantially complied with the subpoena. See ECF No [17] at 2. Accordingly, Petitioner “requests the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Id. at 1-2. CASE NO. 1:25-CV-20632-LENARD/Elfenbein

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)@) allows a plaintiff to seek voluntary dismissal of an action by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(G). Here, Respondent has not yet entered an appearance in the matter, so Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action. Accordingly, I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion, ECF No. [17], be GRANTED; that the Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [4], be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and that the case be CLOSED. The Parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Joan A. Lenard, United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the Parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the Parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See

(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Henley v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on May 13, 2025. Aa 7 i oty7 Cb — MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ce: All Counsel of Record