BLATT
v.
GOLDNER
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.
In this district court order, the court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, requiring plaintiff to provide more specific factual allegations and clearer connection between facts and legal claims.
The district court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, requiring plaintiff to provide factual allegations supporting each claim, clearly state which allegations support each claim, allege specific harm, and provide detailed fraud allegations with particularity.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made for clear error.
[2] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
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“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports and the district court's discretion in reviewing them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants (The Dharma Initiative, LLC, Marc J. Goldner, Rachel Korsen, and Simon Divilov) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on …
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (the "Report"). [ECF No. 61]. On March 18, 2024, Defendants, The Dharma Initiative, LLC, Marc J. Goldner, Rachel Korsen, and Simon Divilov, (collectively, “Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 37]. On April 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion. [ECF No. 51]. On May 1, 2024, Defendants filed their Reply in support of their Motion. [ECF No. 57]. On August 21, 2024, 2024, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Court grant, in part, and deny, in part, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 61]. The parties have not objected to the Report.
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).
This Court finds no clear error with Judge Louis's well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted, in part, and denied, in part.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 61], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
2. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's second amended complaint must: a. include only factual allegations that support each of his claims; b. clearly, simply, and concisely state which allegations support each claim; c. raise allegations of harm specific enough to enable the Court to determine whether the injury he seeks to redress is his own, or whether Goldner Blatt Investments, LLC's interests make it indispensable to this suit; and d. allege with sufficient specificity the “who, what, when, where, and how” that form the bases of his fraud claims.
3. Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint by October 9, 2024.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of September, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)