ORBSAT CORP.
v.
SEIFERT
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 adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss.
Plaintiff NextPlat Corp. and Defendant Thomas Seifert filed competing motions to dismiss each other's complaints and counterclaims. A magistrate judge…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 132], regarding: (1) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Thomas Seifert’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 74]; and (2) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants NextPlat Corporation’s and Charles M. Fernandez’s Motion to Dismiss Thomas Seifert’s Counterclaim, [ECF No. 80]. On April 22, 2022, the Court referred this case to Judge Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 56]. On January 9, 2023, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that both Motions to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. Seifert filed timely objections to the Report’s recommendation of dismissal as to Count IV of his Counterclaim. [ECF No. 138].1 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). Having conducted a de novo review of the record as to Count IV of Seifert’s Counterclaim and a clear error review as to all other issues set forth in the Motions, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that both Motions to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 132], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Seifert’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 74], is GRANTED as to Counts IV and V and DENIED as to Counts I, II, and III.
* * * * *
UNITED STATES DIST 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)