Cuervo v. Airport Servs.

Cuervo v. Airport Servs.

Opinion

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This Cause is before the Court on Defendant Proficient Services, LLC's ("Proficient") Motion for a Protective Order. [*2]  [ECF No. 101]. Plaintiffs¹ filed a response in opposition. [ECF No. 104]. Proficient did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed. As outlined below, Proficient's motion is denied and Plaintiffs are awarded $750 in fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 7.1.

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Factual Background

Plaintiffs originally filed suit against Ann Mitchell ("Mitchell"), Hazem A. Sabry ("Sabry"), and Airport Services, Inc., ("ASI") alleging myriad labor law violations arising from their employment as car cleaners for ASI's cleaning service to rental car companies at Miami International Airport. [ECF No. 1]. Sabry and Mitchell answered Plaintiffs' complaint. [ECF Nos. 6; 11]. ASI did not and a default judgment and an award of attorney's fees and costs was entered against it. [ECF Nos. 10; 12; 26; 29; 31; 32; 33]. ASI then filed for bankruptcy. [ECF No. 49].

After ASI's bankruptcy, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add Proficient as a defendant under a successor liability theory. [ECF Nos. 37; 73].² The Court ultimately granted the motion and Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint against ASI, Sabry, and Proficient. [ECF Nos. 74; 75].

ASI and Sabry answered the amended complaint. [ECF No. 77]. [*3]  After filing his answer, Sabry filed for bankruptcy. [ECF No. 79]. Proficient filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. [ECF No. 82]. The Court denied Proficient's motion, but stayed the case as to ASI and Sabry. [ECF No. 95].

B. Proficient's Motion For a Protective Order

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.