NorthStar Moving Holding Company, Inc. v. Northstar Movers, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 0:19-cv-62176-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW NorthStar Moving Holding Company, Inc., d.b.a. NorthStar Moving and NorthStar Movers, Plaintiff, v. King David Van Lines, Ohad Guzi, and Itzhak Bokobza, Defendants. / ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; HOLDING DEFENDANT OHAD GUZI IN CIVIL CONTEMPT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff NorthStar Moving Holding Company, Inc. d.b.a. NorthStar Moving and NorthStar Movers (“NorthStar” or “Plaintiff”)’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Defendant Ohad Guzi Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failing to Comply with Paperless Court Order Dated July 21, 2022 [DE 337], and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 356], dated December 1, 2022. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 356], Defendant Ohad Guzi’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE’s 359, 360], and the record herein. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Objections. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court (i) enter an Order holding Defendant Ohad Guzi in civil contempt for failure to obey the Court’s Order dated July 21, 2022 [DE 336] (“Defendant Ohad Guzi shall respond to the First Request for Production Served on May 13, 2022, on or before July 27, 2022. Any objections to the discovery are deemed waived.”); (ii) enter an Order ruling that Defendant Ohad Guzi should incur a $100 fine per each day he remains in non-compliance with the Court’s Order [DE 336]; and (iii) enter an order ruling that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs associated with its contempt motion [DE 337]. The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the entire file and record herein, agrees with the reasoning and conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. Further, Defendant Ohad Guzi’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE’s 359, 360] are without merit and shall be overruled. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 356] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendant Ohad Guzi’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [DE’s 359, 360] are OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt [DE 337] is hereby GRANTED as follows: a. The Court finds that Defendant Ohad Guzi is in CIVIL CONTEMPT of the Paperless Court Order Dated July 21, 2022 [DE 336]; b. Defendant Ohad Guzi shall incur a $100 fine per each day he remains in non- compliance with this Court’s Order [DE 336]; c. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs associated with its contempt motion. Plaintiff may file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge for determination of the amount to be awarded. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Defendant Ohad Guzi at the address below and to enter a NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE in the record indicating it has done so. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of December, 2022. fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af CA MAGIA AYN GC VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS Copies to: United States District Judge Judge Hunt Counsel of Record Ohad Guzi 3740 N. 54th Avenue Hollywood, FL 33021