CLAUDIA DE FREITAS
v.
RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.
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 recommends granting a motion to compel arbitration and stay the case between De Freitas and Richemont North America, Inc., after the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes.
The court recommends granting the motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. The parties' agreement to arbitrate and joint request for a stay supported this outcome.
“The Parties have agreed to arbitrate their claims and that the case should be stayed pending arbitration.”
Establishes the parties' mutual consent to arbitration, which forms the basis for the recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaudia De Freitas brought a case against Richemont North America, Inc. The parties agreed to arbitrate their claims and jointly moved to compel arbit…
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 Waiver Of Right To Challenge On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Claudia De Freitas does not oppose the Motion. See ECF No. 8. The Parties have agreed to arbitrate their claims and that the case should be stayed pending arbitration. [fn 1] See id. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Case, ECF No. 4, be GRANTED.
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
DONE AND SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of December 2025.
Pak mint PATRICK M. HUNT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: The Honorable William Dimitrouleas Counsel of record
2
[fn 1]: The Parties have jointly submitted a corresponding proposed order to the Court. That proposed order grants the motion, ordering arbitration and a stay.