Hoang v. Doral 888 LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 9:23-cv-80479-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART
THANH M. HOANG,
Plaintiff,
v.
DORAL 888 LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation on Defendant
Kenny Tang’s Motion To Dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [ECF No. 188] (the “R&R”),
recommending the Motion be DENIED. Tang filed Objections to the R&R [ECF No. 191], which
the undersigned has considered along with Tang’s Motion, the R&R, relevant portions of the record
and the governing law. 	Finding no error, the Court fully ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the R&R, as
discussed below.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff Thanh M. Hoang (“Hoang”) filed a Complaint and demand for
jury trial against Doral 888 LLC (“Doral 888”), Boca 888 LLC (“Boca 888”), and Kenny Tang
(“Tang”) (collectively “Defendants”), under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
[Compl., ECF No. 1]. A Clerk’s default was entered against Defendants Doral 888, LLC and Boca
888, LLC on January 29, 2026. [See ECF Nos. 120, 123, 126, 127, 130]. On August 4, 2026, the Court
granted summary judgment against Tang and in favor of Hoang on Count II of the Amended
Complaint. [ECF No. 182]. On September 9, 2026, Final Judgment was entered against Tang in the
amount of $435.00 in unpaid minimum wages and $458.00 in liquidated damages. [ECF No. 190].
On August 19, 2026, Tang tendered $870.00 to Hoang and thereafter moved to dismiss Count
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
II of the Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. [ECF No. 184].
The R&R recommends denying the Motion because the Court retains jurisdiction to award
attorney’s fees under the FLSA if Hoang pursues them. [ECF No. 188 at 4–5]. On August 25, 2026,
the undersigned referred the Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinart for a report and
recommendation. [ECF No. 187]. On September 4, 2026, Judge Reinhart recommended denying the
Motion because the Court retains jurisdiction over this action to award attorney’s fees to Hoang as
the prevailing party on Count II of the Amended Complaint under the FLSA. [ECF No. 188 at 1, 4].
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report
and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections need not be considered by the district court.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge],” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record” to accept the
recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment, subdivision (b).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Tang lodges two objections to the R&R: (1) Tang’s tendering full payment to Hoang before
the Court entered Final Judgment mooted Count II of the Amended Complaint, depriving the Court
of subject-matter jurisdiction [ECF No. 191 at 3–8]; and, in any event, (2) Hoang is not a “prevailing
party” under the FLSA’s fees-shifting provision [id. at 8]. The first objection simply re-litigates the
argument set forth in Tang’s Motion, which Judge Reinhart considered and rejected. [See ECF Nos.
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
184, 188]. Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Reinhart that Tang’s payment of $870.00
to Hoang after the Court had granted summary judgment against Tang on Count II did not moot the
claim. Had Tang paid Hoang his full wages before summary judgment was entered against him, that
would be a different matter.
As for the second objection, the Court need not consider it as Tang cites case law only. [See
ECF No. 191 at 7]. Tang does not show how that caselaw applies to this case in the manner
advocated—that Hoang is not a prevailing party under the FLSA. See Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Motion, the R&R, the objections, relevant portions of the record, and
the governing law, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 188] is ADOPTED
and AFFIRMED and fully incorporated into this Order.
2. 	Defendant’s Objections [ECF No. 191] are OVERRULED.
3. 	The Motion [ECF No. 184] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 23, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 9:23-cv-80479-DSL Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2026 Page 3 of 3