BRAMAN MOTORS, INC.

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC

for itself and in the name of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida, for its use and benefit, and doing business as Braman BMW,

PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., for itself and in the name of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida, for its use and benefit, and doing business as Braman Motorcars,

THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of Braman Motors, Inc. and Palm Beach Imports, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 378], regarding Defendant BMW of North America, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “BMW NA”) Motion in Limine (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 366]. On August 5, 2021, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 289]. On November 18, 2022, Judge Otazo- Reyes issued her report recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 378]. Plaintiff Braman Motors, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Braman”) filed timely

objections to the Report. [ECF No. 379]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts the Report. 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 objection is 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 objection is 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, including the Motion, the Report, and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 378], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Defendant BMW NA’s Motion, [ECF No. 366], is GRANTED as to its request that Braman be precluded from offering evidence of nominal damages in support of Counts III and IV of Braman’s Fourth Amended Complaint. (3) Defendant BMW NA’s Motion, [ECF No. 366], is DENIED as to its request that Braman be precluded from offering the testimony of Mr. Stockton at trial. Accordingly, Mr. Stockton may testify on the issue of harm in support of Braman’s claim for injunctive relief in Counts III, [V and X, pursuant to Section 320.695 of the Florida Dealer Act. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st day of February, 2023.

Df

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE