Macias v. Celebrity Cruises Inc ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 21-cv-20813-GAYLES/TORRES BERNABE MACIAS, JR., ESPERANZA A. MACIAS, and MARIA MACIAS CARRERAS, individually and as personal Representative of the ESTATE of ALVARO CARLOS CARRERAS, deceased Plaintiff, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Celebrity Cruises Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 7]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non- dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 11]. On November 19, 2021, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 17]. No objections have been filed. 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 objection is 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 objection is 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). In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that (1) the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, (2) Count One be dismissed with leave to amend, (3) Count Two be dismissed with prejudice, (4) Plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial stricken, and (5) Defendant’s motion to strike non- pecuniary damages allegations from the Estate of Alvaro Carlos Carreras’ claims pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act be denied without prejudice. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’s recommendation and agrees that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 17], is adopted in full; (2) Defendant Celebrity Cruise Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, [ECF No. 7], is granted in part and denied in part; (3) Count One of the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; (4) Count Two of the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice; (5) Plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial is stricken; (6) Defendant’s motion to strike non-pecuniary damages allegations from the Estate of Alvaro Carlos Carreras’ claims pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act is denied without prejudice; (7) Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of December, 2021. af DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE