DE LARREA
v.
GOLDEN YACHT CHARTERS, INC.

S.D. Fla. | 2025-09-04
No. 21-cv-22324
2025 FFL 23060 District Court, S.D. Florida (2025)

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.

Synopsis

The District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff Monica Burillo De Larrea's Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses filed by Defendants in a maritime dispute case. The Court granted the motion in part, striking four affirmative defenses entirely, converting nine others to specific denials, and denying the motion as to four remaining defenses.


Holding

The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike as to the First, Second, Tenth, and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses, which were stricken entirely. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses were treated as specific denials rather than stricken. The Court denied the Motion as to the Third, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses, which remain in the case.


Headnotes

[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when timely objections are filed.

[2] A district court may adopt a magistrate judge's report and recommendation if it finds the report to be well-reasoned and correct, even in the absence of objections.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and correct.”

Establishes the Court's standard for accepting the Magistrate Judge's analysis on affirmative defenses

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Monica Burillo De Larrea filed a Motion to Strike various affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants Golden Yacht Charters, Inc. The motion…

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.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Monica Burillo De Larrea's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (“Motion”). ECF No. [116]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein for a Report and Recommendation. See ECF No. [118]. On August 18, 2025, Judge Elfenbein issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' First, Second, Tenth, and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses be stricken and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses be treated as specific denials. ECF No. [133] at 19. Judge Elfenbein also recommended denying Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it seeks to strike Defendants' Third, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses. Id.

The Report and Recommendation advised the parties they had “fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of th[e] Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Beth Bloom, United States District Judge.” Id. To date, the parties have not filed objections, nor have they sought additional time to file objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Elfenbein's Report

Case No. 21-cv-22324-BLOOM/Elfenbein and Recommendation and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis and concludes that Plaintiff's Motion should be granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [133], is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, ECF No. [116], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

3. Plaintiff's request to strike Defendants' First, Second, Tenth, and Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiffs' request to strike Defendants' Third, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.

5. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses shall be treated as specific denials.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on September 3, 2025.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw