KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MATA CHORWADI, 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, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendants moved to dismiss Counts III-VI of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion as to Count V and…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
__________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 41]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Counts III-VI for Declaratory Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 32], filed on April 27, 2023. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 36]. Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”) [ECF No. 41]. Specifically, Judge Reinhart recommends that the Motion be denied as to Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI and granted as to Count V [ECF No. 41 p. 10]. Defendants and Plaintiff filed Notices of No Intention to File Objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 44, 45]. 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, 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 agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 32] should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as indicated below. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 41] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Counts III– VI for Declaratory Judgment [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
a. Count V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31 ¶¶ 35–37] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
b. Plaintiff’s remaining claims (Counts I–IV and VI) may proceed. 3. Defendants shall file an answer to Counts I–IV and VI of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 31] on or before July 7, 2023. 4. On or before July 13, 2023, the parties shall file a joint proposed notice scheduling mediation in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order [ECF No. 42].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 23rd day of June 2023.
& fe CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 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)