Isaacs v. Keller Williams Realty Inc. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:23-cv-81393-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART DR. JEFF ISAACS, Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., , Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation on the following motions: Equestrian Palms, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 29], Makai Southeast, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 38], and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 39]. Judge Reinhart has since issued a report, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Makai Southeast, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, grant Keller Williams Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, deny as moot Equestrian Palms, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, dismiss without prejudice the First Amended Complaint as a shotgun pleading. [ECF No. 118]. Neither party has submitted objections, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart’s report and recommendation in part and dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 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) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up). The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart’s report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart’s report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the report and recommendation in part and dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 118] is ADOPTED IN PART as to the portion that dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. 2. The First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 25] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as a shotgun pleading. 3. Plaintiff Dr. Jeff Isaacs shall file an amended complaint no later than June 3, 2024 that cures the deficiencies as stated in Judge Reinhart’s report and recommendation. If Dr. Isaacs does not cure the deficiencies in the complaint by June 3, 2024, the Court will dismiss the case without further notice for failure to comply with Court order. 4. Equestrian Palms, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 29] is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. Makai Southeast, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 38] is DENIED AS MOOT. 6. Keller Wiliams Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 39] is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 13, 2024. ’ ' DAVID S, LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record

Document Info

Docket Number: 9:23-cv-81393

Filed Date: 5/14/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/21/2024