UNITED STATES
v.
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7505 AND 7171 FOREST LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75230
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 District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied Claimants' motion to dismiss in this forfeiture action involving real property in Dallas, Texas. The court found the action is timely, the court has jurisdiction, and the property has a substantial connection to money laundering offenses.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that: (1) the action is not time-barred; (2) the court has jurisdiction over the case; and (3) the PNC Plaza constitutes property involved in a money laundering offense with a substantial connection to the funds at issue.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report to which objections are made de novo, provided the objections pinpoint specific findings of disagreement.
[2] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objections are made for clear error.
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“Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if those objections 'pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.'”
Establishes the standard of review for objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is a civil forfeiture action involving real property located at 7505 and 7171 Forest Lane, Dallas, Texas. Claimants filed a motion to dismiss the…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman's Report and Recommendations (the “Report”), [ECF No. 241], regarding Claimants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with Prejudice (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 221]. On December 14, 2023, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Goodman for a ruling, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 219]. Following a hearing [ECF No. 232], Judge Goodman issued his Report on July 26, 2024, recommending that the Court deny the Motion [ECF No. 241]. Objections and responses were timely filed. [ECF Nos. 245, 250].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Goodman's well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that (1) this action is not time-barred; (2) the Court has jurisdiction over this case; and (3) the PNC Plaza constitutes property involved in a money laundering offense with a substantial connection to the funds at issue in this case. The Court will therefore deny the Claimants' Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Goodman's Report and Recommendations, [ECF No. 241], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Claimants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with Prejudice, [ECF No. 221], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of December, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)