N.A.S. v. Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23676-GAYLES/TORRES N.A.S., Plaintiff, v. MORADA-HAUTE FURNITURE BOUTIQUE, LLC, FERNAN HERNANDEZ, and HOLGER ODENSTEIN, Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 104] regarding Defendants’, MORADA-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC, Fernan Hernandez, and Holger Odenstein, Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (the “Amended Motion”) [ECF No. 56]. On November 13, 2020, Plaintiff N.A.S. filed this action against Defendant MORADA-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC. [ECF No. 1]. On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint against Defendant MORADA- Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC, and joined Defendants Fernan Hernandez and Holger Odenstein. [ECF No. 28]. On June 18, 2021, Defendants filed their Amended Motion in which they seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 56]. On June 21, 2021, Defendants moved to stay discovery pending a resolution of their Amended Motion. [ECF No. 58]. On July 26, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 85]. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, which Defendants opposed. [ECF No. 103]. On August 24, 2021, Judge Torres issued his Report in which he recommends that the Amended Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 104]. As to Counts I, III, IV, and V, the Report recommends granting the Amended Motion and dismissing those Counts with prejudice. Id. at 13. As to Count II and VI, the Report recommends denying the Amended Motion. Id. at 13–14. The Report also recommends denying as moot Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Id. at 13 n.4. Finally, the Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint should be denied. Id. at 8–9 n.3. On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff timely filed her Objections to the Report (the “Objections”), [ECF No. 114], to which Defendants did not respond. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that: (1) the Amended Motion should be granted in part and denied in part; (2) Counts I, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice; (3) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint should be denied as moot; and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint should be denied. Notably, the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objections are simply a reiteration of those arguments made in her Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, which Judge Torres considered in his Report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 104], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Defendants’, MORADA-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC, Fernan Hernandez, and Holger Odenstein, Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 56], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 3. Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to Counts I, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff N.A.S.’s First Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to those Counts. 4. Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is DENIED as to Counts II and VI of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 5. Defendants’, MORADA-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC, Fernan Hernandez, and Holger Odenstein, Motion to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 58], is DENIED as moot. 6. Plaintiff N.A.S.’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 103], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of October, 2021. DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE