ROLLE
v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss Count I for negligence but granting it for claims of negligent mode of operation or training.
Plaintiff sued Defendant, who moved to dismiss Count I (Negligence) of the Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in …
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 Negligent Mode Of Operation cases and more on FLexlaw
__________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 17]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”) [ECF No. 17], filed on September 27, 2023.
On August 9, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), requesting that the Court dismiss Count I (Negligence) of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as a whole, or in the alternative, strike impertinent pleadings [ECF No. 6].
On September 27, 2023, following referral, Judge Ryon M. McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 17]. Objections to the Report were due on October 11, 2023 [ECF No. 17 p. 6]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 17 p. 6]. 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, CASE NO. 23-14232-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
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, 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 de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 17 pp. 2-6], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 6] is DENIED as to Count I for negligence.
3. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff attempts to state a claim for negligent mode of operation and/or negligent training. Any such claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in light of Plaintiff's concession that she does not seek to bring such a claim [see ECF No. 10 p. 5].
4. The Motion is DENIED to the extent Defendant seeks to strike allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
5. On or before October 27, 2023, Defendant shall file its Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, in accordance with this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 13th day of October 2023.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)