BOOM LANKA BATHIK & GIFTS, LLC
v.
SCANWELL LOGISTICS (MIA), 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.
Scanwell Logistics appealed a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter in this commercial dispute with Boom Lanka Bathik & Gifts, LLC. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's order for clear error or legal impropriety and found none, affirming the order and remanding the case to state court.
The district court held that the magistrate judge's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and therefore affirmed the order. The case was remanded to state court.
[1] Magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive matters.
[2] A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Magistrate Judges are afforded broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive matters, but the Court may reconsider any order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Establishes the standard of review for appeals of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between Boom Lanka Bathik & Gifts, LLC and Scanwell Logistics (MIA), Inc. A magistrate judge issued an order on a non-disp…
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 Contrary To Law Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Scanwell Logistics (MIA), Inc. filed an appeal of the Order (the "Appeal”). ECF No. [26].
Magistrate Judges are afforded broad discretion in the resolution of nondispositive matters, but the Court may reconsider any order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Runton by & through Adult Advocacy & Representation v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-60664-CV, 2018 WL 1083493, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Krys v.
Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F. 3d 1515, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). A finding is “contrary to law” if it does not properly apply relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure. United States ex rel. Ragghianti Foundations III, LLC v. Peter R. Brown Constr., No. 12-942-CV, 2013 WL 5290108, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2013). The Magistrate Judge Rules of the Southern District of Florida Local Rules permit the appeal of a magistrate judge's order on non-dispositive matters. L. Mag. Judge R. 4(a).
The Court has reviewed Judge Torres's Order, Defendant's Appeal, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, and finds that the Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Appeal, ECF No. [26], is OVERRULED, and Judge Torres's Order, ECF No. [25], is AFFIRMED.
This case is REMANDED to state court. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt remand of this matter and the transfer of this file back to the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 26th day of March, 2025.
JACQUELINE BECERRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boom Lanka Bathik & Gifts, LLC v. Scanwell Logistics (MIA), Inc., 2018 WL 1083493 (S.D. Fla. 2025)…on in the resolution of non- dispositive matters, but the Court may reconsider any order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Runton by & through Adult Advocacy & Representation v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-60664-CV, 2018 WL 1083493, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court, after assessing the evidence in its entirety, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been…
-
Zagg Inc. v. TX Trading, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2024)…ate judge doesn't behave unfairly just because she gives one party more than she gives the other. Two, we reiterate that there's no “hard and fast rule” when it comes to "rul[ing] on [a] discovery dispute[.]" Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., 2018 WL 1083493, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018) (Goodman, Mag. J.). “[I]ndeed, on virtually identical facts, two decision makers can arrive at opposite conclusions, both of which constitute appropriate exercises of discretion.” Ibid. (cleaned up). But that possib…
-
The Mad Room LLC v. The City of Miami (S.D. Fla. 2023)…denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule . . . . Indeed, on virtually identical facts, two decision makers can arrive at opposite conclusions, both of which constitute appropriate exercises of discretion.” Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., 2018 WL 1083493, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018) (Goodman, Mag. J.) (cleaned up). Having reviewed the hearing transcripts, the City’s Objections, and the Plaintiffs’ response, we find no abuse of discretion in Judge Reid’s redaction of references to the Plaintif…
Authorities Cited
- Keys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Boom Lanka Bathik & Gifts, LLC v. Scanwell Logistics (MIA), Inc., 2018 WL 1083493 (S.D. Fla. 2025)