Oretha Beh and Kimberly Balkum, individually and on behalf of all persons...

Sone DISTRICF o> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT kr FRED NGS WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAY - 7 2026 Hone yoe eR OSL ORETHA BEH and KIMBERLY QF ERN Tae EE BALKUM, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 19-CV-1417 (JLS) (MJR) Vv.

COMMUNITY CARE COMPANIONS INC., ALEXANDER J. CARO, MARK GATIEN, INTERIM HEALTHCARE OF ROCHESTER, INC., and JAMES WATSON, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Oretha Beh and Kimberly Balkum commenced this putative class and collective action on October 22, 2019, alleging claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law against Defendants! Community Care Companions Inc., Alexander J. Caro, Mark Gatien, Interim HealthCare of Rochester, Inc., and James Watson. See Dkts. 1, 111. Plaintiffs’ claims stem from their employment as home-care workers. See Dkt. 111 4] 11-14. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under Defendants Interim HealthCare of Rochester, Inc. and James Watson have not appeared in this action. Accordingly, references to “Defendants” in this decision and order are to Defendants Community Care Companions Inc., Alexander J. Caro, and Mark Gatien. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 128. The case was reassigned to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer on April 2, 2021. Dkt. 254.

Defendants moved for partial summary judgment as to liquidated damages on June 20, 2025. Dkts. 705-709. Plaintiffs responded in opposition on July 23, 2025. Dkt. 710-713. Defendants replied in further support of their motion on August 1, 2025. Dkt. 714-715. Defendants also filed a notice of supplemental authority on August 12, 2025. Dkt. 716.

Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on March 11, 2026, recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 726.

Defendants objected to the R&R on March 25, 2026. Dkt. 727. Specifically, they argue that the R&R improperly interpreted the language and intent of the May 9, 2025 amendment to Section 191 of the New York Labor Law. See id. at 1.

Plaintiffs responded in opposition on April 16, 2026. Dkt. 734. Defendants replied on April 27, 2026. Dkt. 735.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). It must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objection, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation to deny Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.?

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The Court refers this matter back to Judge Roemer, consistent with the referral order at Dkt. 128, for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2026 Buffalo, New York f JOHN. SINATRA, JR. ~ □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Court was particularly persuaded by the statutory-context argument set forth at Dkt. 734, pp. 11-12 (CM-ECF pagination) and in the briefing before the Magistrate Judge.