Skip to content
Freelancer RightsKnow what you are owed, and why

Court dispute group

Monzano-Moreno v. Libqual Fence Co., Inc.

Records preserved here
1 record — an opinion count, not a count of dockets or filings
Court(s)
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Docket number(s)
EDNY 18-cv-0161 (MKB)(AKT); 2021 WL 730663
Citation(s)
None reported
Latest record in this collection
February 5, 2021 — this is the latest document collected, not a docket-status check
Where these records came from
citation_records.json (September 6, 2026 citation expansion)

Read this alongside the records

  • This is a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Later opinions cite adoption on February 23, 2021 (2021 WL 688295), but the adoption order itself is not in this collection.

Opinion history

Ordered oldest to newest. Summaries describe what each document says; they do not endorse any court’s reading of the statute.

  1. February 5, 2021New case groupRecord 1

    Monzano-Moreno v. Libqual Fence Co., Inc.

    Court
    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
    Docket
    EDNY 18-cv-0161 (MKB)(AKT); 2021 WL 730663
    Why it is here
    Located through the citation-expansion pass.
    Preserved summary of what the court did
    Report and recommendation recommends summary judgment for moving defendants on alternative FIFA claims: even assuming freelance-worker status, Dima Fence was the hiring party, rather than those defendants. Later opinions cite adoption on February 23, 2021 (2021 WL 688295); adoption order itself not obtained.
    Award
    No damages awarded in this ruling
    Claim amount
    Unknown
    Ultimate outcome
    Not verified
    Issues
    Citation-expansion addition
    Where this appears in the document
    Section addressing Freelance Isn't Free Act and conclusion; distinguish recommendation from adoption.
    Found through
    • Ortiz v. Consolidated Edison (2025), FIFA discussion
    • Ward v. Cohen Media Publications (2023), p. 36
    • Varn v. Orchestrade (2022), FIFA discussion
    Review scope
    Later history not comprehensively checked

    Source and saved documents

Citation connections

Quoted citations in the saved opinion

Each line below was read in the saved document itself, with the page it appears on. A citation shows that the court referred to the other matter; it is not an endorsement of the outcome, and this is not a full table of authorities.

  • Quoted in the documentCited by Petty v. Maison Hospitality Furnishings et al.

    …Petty (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2026), original PDF p. 21: See Monzano-Moreno v. Libqual Fence Co., No. 18-CV-0161 (MKB)(AKT), 2021 WL 730663, at *18 (Feb. 5, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 688295 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2021)…

Verified discovery trail

How this matter was located during the citation-expansion pass.

  • Found through Ortiz v. Consolidated Edison (2025), FIFA discussion. New case group
  • Found through Ward v. Cohen Media Publications (2023), p. 36. New case group
  • Found through Varn v. Orchestrade (2022), FIFA discussion. New case group

Limits on this entry

No comprehensive later-treatment research, full-docket retrieval or payment verification was performed for this matter. Saved files are copies of public records, not certified copies. Snapshot date: September 8, 2026. Full methodology and coverage.