Della Polla v. Palencia ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23185-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES FABRIZIO DELLA POLLA, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER PALENCIA, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 159], regarding the parties’ cross motions for summary judgement filed by Plaintiff Fabrizio Della Polla and Defendant Alexander Palencia. [ECF Nos. 102, 105, & 111]. On November 1, 2020, the action was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes, 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. 21]. On April 21, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF Nos. 105 & 111], be denied, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment, [ECF No. 102], be granted in part, only as to Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, and that it be otherwise denied. [ECF No. 159]. Plaintiff and Defendant have filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF Nos. 160 & 162]. 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). Having conducted a de novo review of the cross motions and the record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied and Defendant’s Motion should be granted in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 159], is AFFRIMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Plaintiff Fabrizio Della Polla’s Motion for Summary Judgement, [ECF Nos. 105 & 111], is DENIED. (3) Defendant Alexander Palencia’s Motion for Summary Judgement, [ECF No. 102], is GRANTED IN PART, only as to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages, and is otherwise DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of September, 2022. af BLK UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-23185

Filed Date: 9/22/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/21/2024