Davis v. Farzad Sani, DDS, P.C. et al, No. 1:2020cv00733 - Document 35 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and for a stay (Dkt. No. 17 ) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/17/2021. (sal )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Farzad Sani, DDS, P.C. et al Doc. 35 Case 1:20-cv-00733-GTS-CFH Document 35 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ HEIDI DAVIS, Plaintiff, 1:20-CV-0733 (GTS/CFH) v. FARZAD SANI, DDS, P.C., d/b/a Pediatric Dental Group of New York, and DR. FARZAD SANI, in his individual capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: SOLOMON LAW FIRM PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff 300 Great Oaks Boulevard, Suite 312 Albany, New York 12203 KATHRYN LYNNE BARCROFT, ESQ. HODGSON RUSS LLP Counsel for Defendants 677 Broadway, Suite 301 Albany, New York 12207 GLEN P. DOHERTY, ESQ. TABNER, RYAN & KENIRY, LLP Co-counsel for Defendants 18 Corporate Woods Boulevard Albany, New York 12211-2605 THOMAS R. FALLATI, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this labor action pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) filed by Heidi Davis (“Plaintiff”) against Farzad Sani, DDS, d/b/a Pediatric Dental Group of New York and Dr. Farzad Sani, in his individual capacity (“Defendants”), are (1) Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and for a stay pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00733-GTS-CFH Document 35 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 2 Act (“FAA”), and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s ReportRecommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion be denied. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 34.) Neither party has filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein and Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and for a stay is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and for a stay (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED. Dated: September 17, 2021 Syracuse, New York 1 When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
