The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-20632-LENARD/Elfenbein
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ONE LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT,
LLC,
Respondent.
_________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Petitioner National Labor Relations Board’s
(“Petitioner”) Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Amended Application
for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [17]. In the Motion,
Petitioner explains that it asked the Court to issue an Order requiring that Respondent comply with
subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ. See ECF No. [17] at 1. The Court thereafter issued an
Order directing Respondent to appear before this Court and show cause why an order should not
issue directing Respondent to produce the requested documents. Id.; ECF No. [12]. Following
the entry of the Order to Show Cause, Respondent produced documents responsive to subpoena
duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ on May 2, 4, 6, and 9, 2025, and upon its review of the documents,
Petitioner determined that Respondent’s production substantially complied with the subpoena. See
ECF No [17] at 2. Accordingly, Petitioner “requests the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of
the Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum” pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Id. at 1-2.
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-20632-LENARD/Elfenbein
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)@) allows a plaintiff to seek voluntary dismissal of an action by filing “a
notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(G). Here, Respondent has not yet entered an
appearance in the matter, so Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action. Accordingly, I
respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion, ECF No. [17], be GRANTED; that the Amended
Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [4], be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and that the case be CLOSED.
The Parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable
Joan A. Lenard, United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the Parties
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar
the Parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this
Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th
Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on May 13, 2025.
Aa 7
i oty7 Cb —
MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ce: All Counsel of Record