BETANCOURT

v.

CORPORACION HOTELERA PALMA LLC.

The Court agrees with each of the Report's substantive conclusions. However, the Court rejects Plaintiff's additional request for leave to amend. See (DE 50 at 19–20)

recommends the Court reject Driftwood's argument that the allegations of violations concerning Defendants' online reservation system are based on factual misrepresentations, as those issues are “better reserved for summary judgment.” (Id. at 30.)

Case 1:24-cv-22126-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/25 10:28:56

(requesting leave to make unspecified amendments to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint if the Court grants Driftwood's Motion). First, as the Report notes, Plaintiff “impermissibly included [his] request to amend his complaint within his response to [Driftwood's] Motion." (Id. at 36 n.19); see also Newton v. Duke Energy Fla., LLC, 895 F. 3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]here a request for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an opposition memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.") (quoting Cita Tr. Co. AG v. Fifth Third Bank, 879 F. 3d 1151, 1157 (11th Cir. 2018)). Further, the request is substantively deficient, as it contains no details regarding what the amended allegations would be and how they would cure the issues eventually raised in the Report. Newton, 895 F. 3d at 1278 (holding plaintiffs' request for leave to amend did not sufficiently set forth the substance of the proposed amendment when it “merely hypothesize[d], in broad strokes, the kinds of amendments that [p]laintiffs might have been able to make"). Finally, given Plaintiff's multiple failed attempts to show an immediate threat of future injury, and the fact that Plaintiff is limited to showing that the threat existed as of the time of filing, the Court concludes amendment would be futile. See Cooksey v. Waters, 435 F. App’x 881, 884 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Denial of leave to amend 'is justified by futility when the complaint as amended is still subject to dismissal."). [fn 4]

Case 1:24-cv-22126-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/25 10:28:56

Accordingly, upon a careful review of the Report, the Motion, the record, and the applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judge Goodman's Report (DE 62) is ADOPTED IN PART.
2. Driftwood's Motion to Dismiss (DE 40) is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 34) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

4. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend his Amended Complaint is DENIED. 5. All hearings, trial, and deadlines are CANCELED. Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 17th day of March, 2025.

KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Therefore, Plaintiff does not show a reasonable likelihood of his return to the subject property and no amendment can change these facts.

[fn 1]: Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 50), and Driftwood filed a Reply (DE 53).

[fn 2]: In contrast, the Report finds Plaintiff has alleged he suffered a concrete injury associated with the violations alleged in paragraphs 32(a), (d), (f)–(m). (Id. at 18.) The Report also

[fn 3]: Because the Court is dismissing the entirety of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without leave to amend, the issue of whether to dismiss these phrases discussing unspecified violations with prejudice need not be addressed.

[fn 4]: In his Amended Complaint (DE 23), Plaintiff attempts to buttress his showing of an immediate threat of future injury by alleging that he anticipates frequent trips to his attorney, Glenn Goldstein's office, which is 12.6 miles from the subject property in Miami- Dade. (DE 23 at 12.) However, as Driftwood notes in its Motion, Plaintiff has filed over 130 ADA cases in Florida since 2021 and many were handled by Mr. Goldstein or other counsel located in Miami-Dade. (DE 40 at 16; DE 40-1; DE 40-2) (listing cases and copying prior complaints filed by Miami-Dade counsel). Yet, Plaintiff does not allege having ever travelled to Miami-Dade for the purposes of meeting with counsel. (DE 40 at 16.) And even if Plaintiff's prediction of future travel is sincere, there are more than onehundred hotels closer to his attorney's office than the subject property. (DE 62 at 23.)