ONEMATA CORPORATION
v.
RAHMAN
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.
Onemata Corporation v. Rahman involves multiple motions to dismiss related to notices to appear and proceedings supplementary. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying certain motions as moot while granting the motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint with leave to amend.
The court denied the motions to dismiss the notices to appear and proceedings supplementary as moot, denied the third parties' request for a scheduling order without prejudice, and granted the motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint with leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge's report.
[1] Motions to dismiss notices to appear and proceedings supplementary are denied as moot when a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted without timely object…
[2] A motion to dismiss a supplemental complaint is granted with leave to amend when pleading deficiencies are identified in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation th…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 714] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusions.”
Establishes the standard of review applied by the district court to the magistrate judge's recommendations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves Onemata Corporation against Rahman and related parties, including multiple Nevada LLCs and trusts (MaskGene LLC, Peacenheaven LLC, L…
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 Pleading Deficiencies cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon (1) the Moving Parties' Motions to Dismiss Notices to Appear and Proceedings Supplementary [DE's 621, 649]; (ii) The Rahman Arefin Living Trust's Amended and Restated Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Supplementary and Notice to Appear [DE 624] (together, the “Motions to Dismiss the Notices to Appear”); (iii) the Moving Parties' Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement [DE 673] (the “Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint”) (collectively, the "Motions”)¹, and the August 28, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 714] (the “Report”). As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate
Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 714] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 714] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 714] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED.
2. The Moving Parties' Motions to Dismiss Notices to Appear and Proceedings Supplementary [DE's 621, 649] are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Rahman Arefin Living Trust's Amended and Restated Motion to Dismiss Proceedings Supplementary and Notice to Appear [DE 624] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Third Parties' request for a scheduling order to set discovery and all other deadlines to govern these proceedings supplementary (see DE 621 at 10; 624 at 15; 649 at 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5. The Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint [DE 673] is GRANTED, with leave to amend to cure the pleading deficiencies as described in the Report [DE 714].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 5th day of September, 2024.
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
[fn 1]: The “Moving Parties” in the Motions to Dismiss the Notices to Appear are: (i) MaskGene, LLC, Peacenheaven, LLC, Lakemont Property, LLC, BashaBari, LLC, Sunshine Irrevocable Trust, Paradise Valley Irrevocable Trust, and Bright Stars Irrevocable Trust, each alleged to be a Nevada LLC or a Nevada irrevocable trust; and (ii) CSB Holdings and HomeLien Investment LLC, aka Trident Trust (Nevis) (“HomeLien LLC"), Ora Partners Wealth Solutions, and HomeLien Investment LTD (hereinafter, collectively the "Third Parties").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)