N.A.S. v. Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-24676-DPG N.A.S. and MARCUS HILES, Plaintiffs, v. MORADA-HAUTE FURNITURE BOUTIQUE, LLC, FERNAN HERNANDEZ, HOLGER ODENSTEIN, and BARBARA PUCHE, Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 202], regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III & V–XI of Third Amended Complaint and Motion for More Definite Statement as to Counts I & IV (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 197]. On July 26, 2021, the action was referred to Judge 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. 85]. On July 22, 2022, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 202]. While all four Defendants, Morada-Haute Furniture Boutique, LLC (“Morada”), Holger Odenstein (“Odenstein”), Fernan Hernandez (“Hernandez”), and Barbara Puche (“Puche”), joined in the Motion, only Morada, Odenstein, and Hernandez filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF No. 204]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts the Report. 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 record, including the Motion, the Report, Defendants’ objections, and Plaintiffs’ response to the objections [ECF No. 205], the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendants’ Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Chief Magistrate Judge Torres’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 202], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 197], is GRANTED as to Counts II, V, VII, X, and XI. (3) Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 197], is DENIED as to Counts I, III, IV, VI, VIII, and IX. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of October, 2022. Df BLK UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE