G.T., A MINOR
v.
MSC CRUISES, S.A.
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 affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff sued Defendant MSC Cruises, S.A. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which a Magistrate Judge recommended denying. Defendant objected, argu…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 cases and more on FLexlaw
Birch fails to take into account the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Holland v. Carnival Corporation, 50 F. 4th 1088 (11th Cir. 2022) when she concludes that Plaintiff properly pled Defendant's actual notice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (DE 27 at 2.)> The Court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Defendant objected and a review of the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the Report, Objections, record, and applicable law, the Court agrees with Judge Augustin- Birch’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion be denied. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report (DE 24) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant's Motion (DE 9) is DENIED. 3. Defendant shall file its answer to the Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 29th day of August, 2023.
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Defendant’s Objections are improper. They merely state arguments, in some instances verbatim, that were presented to Judge Augustin-Birch before she issued her Report. (Compare DE 27, with DE 9, and DE 22.) However, it is well settled that an objecting party may not “submit [] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a [Report].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)).