ALBAN OSIO
v.
MADURO MOROS
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 for the Southern District of Florida granted plaintiffs' motion for a writ of execution against defendants, ordering seizure of a Learjet aircraft. The court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation with a single correction regarding the stated amount of compensatory damages.
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a writ of execution and ordered the clerk to issue a writ for execution upon the Learjet 45 aircraft. The court corrected the compensatory damages amount to $65 million (as opposed to the $216 million initially referenced) after sustaining plaintiffs' limited objection.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if the objections pinpoint specific findings of disagr…
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 authority to modify them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sought a writ of execution to enforce a judgment against defendants Maduro Moros. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation 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 Writ Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres' Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Writ of Execution (the "Report"). [ECF No. 110]. On January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Writ of Execution (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 94]. Defendants did not file a response to the Motion. On January 5, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Torres for a ruling. [ECF No. 96]. On June 10, 2024, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion. [ECF No. 110]. Plaintiffs then filed a Limited Objection regarding an apparent clerical error in the stated amount of compensatory damages in the Report. [ECF No. 111]. Defendants did not file any objections.
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).
The Court has reviewed the record de novo and agrees with Plaintiffs that the correct amount of compensatory damages awarded in this action is $216 million. This Court finds no clear error with the remainder of Judge Torres' well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Limited Objection to One Narrow Facet of the Report and Recommendation (ECF 110) on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 111], is SUSTAINED;
2. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres' Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 110], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED, in full, and incorporated into this Order by reference, with a correction on page six of the Report that the amount of compensatory damages is $65 million;
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Writ of Execution, [ECF No. 94], is GRANTED; and
4. The Clerk shall issue a writ of execution upon the Learjet 45 (Tail Number YV2739) in accordance with Plaintiffs' proposed writ of execution, [ECF No. 94- 2].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st day of July, 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)