Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04927/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04927-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO; 

CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC; 

BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST, 

LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER 

SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES 1-

100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-04927 SBA

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

Docket 210, 222 

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney Fees’ and Costs 

Under the FLSA. Dkt. 210. On September 18, 2014, this matter was referred to Magistrate 

Judge Joseph C. Spero (“the Magistrate”) for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 213. 

On January 13, 2015, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation in which he 

recommends granting Plaintiffs’ motion and awarding $113,120.00 in attorneys’ fees and 

$15,366.75 in costs. Dkt. 222. 

Any objections to the report and recommendation of a Magistrate judge must be 

filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The deadline to object to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation was January 27, 

2015. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To date, no 

objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. In the absence of a timely 

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

Case 4:10-cv-04927-SBA Document 223 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Advisory Committee 

Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see 

also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute [28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if [an] objection is made, but not 

otherwise.”) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear 

error. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation 

(Dkt. 222) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. This Order terminates 

Docket 210 and Docket 222. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 1/30/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-04927-SBA Document 223 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2