GRIMM
v.
IMAGINE NATION COMPANY, INC.

S.D. Fla. | 2024-05-28
No. 23-81142-CIV
2024 FFL 12212 District Court, S.D. Florida (2024)

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.


Holding

The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendants moved to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. Neither party objected…

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.


Opinion of the Court

a/k/a ISLE OF WONDER, LLC, and

DAVID SETH KOTKIN

a/k/a DAVID COPPERFIELD,

Defendants. /

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 23-81142-CIV-CANNON

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 27]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”), issued on May 17, 2024 [ECF No. 27]. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 19 (seeking dismissal ECF No. 18)]. Objections to the Report were due on May 30, 2024 [ECF No. 27 p. 16]. Plaintiff [ECF No. 28] and Defendants [ECF No. 29] thereafter filed notices of no objection to the Report.

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report,

CASE NO. 23-81142-CIV-CANNON

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Following review, the Court finds no error of law or fact in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in the Report.
3. Counts I and IV are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

4. Counts II and III may proceed in this action.

5. On or before June 12, 2024, Defendants shall file an Answer to Counts II and III in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

6. The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 28th day of May 2024.

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw