Corporate Insurance Advisors, LLC v. Addeo ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 0:21-cv-61769-GAYLES/STRAUSS CORPORATE INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA A. ADDEO, LORRAINE R. CARRIO, DONNA J. MARCHESE, THE LIBERTY COMPANY INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., and THE LIBERTY COMPANY INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, Defendants. _______________________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 115] regarding Defendants’, Barbara A. Addeo, Lorraine R. Carrio, and Donna J. Marchese, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 53]. On September 29, 2021, the Court referred this case to Judge Strauss, 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. 15]. On June 27, 2022, Judge Strauss issued his Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. No objections were 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 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 reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss’ well- reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 115], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 53], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED as to Counts III and VIII and DENIED as to all other counts. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of July, 2022. Df BL 4 UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE