DUFFEY
v.
SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY, 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 denied the parties' joint motion for judicial approval of their settlement agreement and dismissal with prejudice, without prejudice to refiling.
The parties filed a joint motion seeking judicial approval of a settlement agreement and dismissal with prejudice. The magistrate judge recommended de…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:20-cv-501-JES-MRM
SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, individually,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #35), filed July 6, 2021, recommending that the parties' Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement, and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. #34) be denied without prejudice. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo,
even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #35) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The parties' Joint Motion for Judicial Approval of the
Parties' Settlement Agreement, and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. #34) is DENIED without prejudice to electing one of the following options on or before August 30, 2021: A. File an amended joint motion to approve a settlement agreement that adequately addresses the issues identified in the Report and Recommendation and file a fully executed settlement agreement that is binding on relevant parties if approved by the Court; or B. File a notice of their intent to litigate this action so that this case may be reset for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 23rd day of July 2021.
—_— (2. _ f AA) DH
JGHH E. STEELE
SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Hon. Mac R. McCoy United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)
- Williams v. Wainwright, 459 U.S. 1112 (U.S. 1983)