Bancor Group Inc. v. Rodriguez ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: 22-cv-20201-GAYLES/TORRES BANCOR GROUP INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GABINA RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based [on] Lack of Article III Standing or in the Alternative for an Order to Show Cause (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 417]. The action was referred to Chief 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. 9]. On January 1, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 444]. Defendants have objected to the Report, [ECF Nos. 451], and Plaintiffs have responded to Defendants’ objections. [ECF No. 453]. 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 finds that (1) Defendants waived any right to raise their lack of standing based on judicial estoppel argument and (2) even if Defendants had not waived the issue, Plaintiffs are not judicially estopped from owning their shares in the bank. [ECF No. 44]. The Court has reviewed the Report and the objections and has conducted a de novo review of the record. The Court agrees with Judge Torres’s finding that the Motion should be denied. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 444], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based [on] Lack of Article II] Standing or in the Alternative for an Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 417], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 2024. of DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE