CANOBINOTI, LLC
v.
WOODS
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 held that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to appoint an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act should be affirmed and adopted, and the case should remain stayed pending arbitration.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to appoint an arbitrator or reconsider an order compelling arbitration. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion a…
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 Motion To Compel Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
d/b/a READS-HEALTHCARE, LLC, THE LIONS GROUP, LLC, JAKE YANG, JO ANN MAKOUS, C&A LOGISTIX, LLC, NATALIE MAKOUS, LEAH COX, and IANUA MARKET LTD.,
Defendants. ______________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 75), regarding Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion to Request Appointment of Arbitrator or, in the alternative, to Reconsider Order Compelling Arbitration (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 49). In her R&R, Judge Damian recommends that the Motion (ECF No. 49) be granted and that the Court appoint an arbitrator pursuant to Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 5, to arbitrate the issues raised in this case and that the arbitration proceed in the manner otherwise provided for in the parties’ Irrevocable Master Fee Protection Agreement (the “Agreement”). ECF No.
75. Judge Damian further recommends that the
case remain stayed pending the completion of the arbitration proceedings. Id. Defendants The Lions Group, LLC, Jake Yang, Jo Ann Makous, C&A Logistix, LLC, and Natalie Makous (collectively, the “Lions Group Defendants”) timely filed objections (ECF No. 76, the “Objections”) to Judge Damian’s R&R. Plaintiffs timely filed a response in opposition to the Lions Group Defendants’ objections (ECF No. 77, the “Response”). District courts must review de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted).
Although Rule 72 is silent on the standard of review, the United States Supreme Court has determined Congress’ intent was to require de novo review only when objections are properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” (alterations added)).
Because the Lions Group Defendants filed timely objections to Judge Damian’s R&R, the Court reviews Judge Damian’s R&R de novo. In their objections, the Lions Group Defendants contend that the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that Plaintiffs’ remedy for any issues with the appointment of an arbitrator lies with the laws of England and the rules of the International Arbitration Centre, and that appointing an arbitrator would be tantamount to a reformation of the Agreement. Objections pp. 1, 3, 4. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 48) was clear that it was not dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but instead, the Order compelled the parties to arbitrate pursuant to the FAA. Response p. 4.1 Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that there is no legal or logical basis for applying English law to overrule the FAA, Eleventh Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Id.2 Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reject the Lions Group Defendants’ reformation argument because they did not
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judge Damian’s R&R (ECF No. 75) is
AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
Accordingly: 1. Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion to Request Appointment of Arbitrator, or in the alternative, to Reconsider Order Compelling Arbitration (ECF No. 49) is
GRANTED.
2. Onor before December 12, 2022, the parties shall confer and, if unable to select an arbitrator, shall submit a joint list of up to six qualified arbitrators, including information about their backgrounds, experience, and relevant qualifications, from which the Court can appoint an arbitrator. The arbitration shall proceed in the manner otherwise provided for in the parties’ Agreement.
3. The case shall remain STAYED pending the completion of the arbitration proceedings. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of December, 2022.
eT oe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
for Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Melissa Damian, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record