Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dharia v. Marriott Hotel Services Inc.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 28, 2019

JATIN DHARIA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a WAIKIKI BEACH MARRIOTT RESORT & SPA, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING, AS MODIFIED, MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a WAIKIKI BEACH MARRIOTT RESORT & SPA'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (ECF NO. 95)

          HELEN GILLMOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jatin Dharia asserts two types of claims against Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. d/b/a Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort & Spa. First, Plaintiff asserts unlawful discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Second, Plaintiff asserts wage and hour claims on behalf of all employees employed by Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

         On October 4, 2018, the Parties engaged in private mediation in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Parties agreed to the Mediator's Proposal and indicated in their Joint Status Reports that they have reached a settlement. In their subsequent Joint Status Report, the Parties stated that the Plaintiff rescinded his agreement to settle.

         On February 19, 2019, Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. d/b/a Waikiki Beach Marriott Resort & Spa filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 67).

         On May 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 95).

         Plaintiff Jatin Dharia objects to the Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 97).

         The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's May 3, 2019 Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 95) with one correction of a typographical error.

         Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 97) are DENIED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff Jatin Dharia filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Other Relief. (ECF No. 1).

         On March 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 25).

         On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 97).

         On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF No. 32).

         On June 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Notice to Putative Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). (ECF No. 50).

         On July 26, 2018, the Court approved the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Stay All Deadlines Pending Mediation. (ECF No. 54).

         On October 4, 2019, the Parties engaged in private mediation.

         On October 25, 2018, November 28, 2018, December 21, 2018, and January 10, 2019, January 24, 2019, the Parties filed Joint Status Reports. (ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 64).

         On February 19, 2019, Defendant filed MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. (ECF No. 67).

         On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. (ECF No. 78).

         On April 8, 2019, Defendant filed its Reply. (ECF No. 79).

         On May 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 95).

         On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff Jatin Dharia filed his OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MAY 3, 2019 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. (ECF No. 97).

         The Defendant did not file a response.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation

         A magistrate judge may be assigned to prepare findings and recommendations for a district judge on a pretrial matter that is dispositive of a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(B). Any party may object to a magistrate judge's findings and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.