AUCTUS GROUP, LLC
v.
216 CONSTELLATION LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant default judgment in part and deny it in part.
Plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendants. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. No objec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Auctus Group, LLC, moves for default judgment against Defendants 216 Constellation LLC and Matthew Case Bryant. (Doc 16.) No response was filed in opposition. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the motion in part and deny it in part. (Doc. 17.) After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). The fourteen-day deadline for objections to the recommendation has passed. No party objected. Nevertheless, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (Steele, J.). After review and for the reasons that the Magistrate Judge stated, the Court concludes that default judgment as to Counts I, H, and IV is appropriate and that default judgment as to Count IIT is not. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Auctus’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the Motion is granted as to Counts I, II, and IV and denied as to Count III. 3. The Clerk is directed to enter default judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $275,000 plus 8% interest from October 18, 2018, until final judgment is entered, plus post-judgment interest accruing at the statutory rate. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 15, 2022.
patron Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)