HOLDEN
v.
SYSTEMS & SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES, 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 District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied Defendant SST's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's analysis and agreed that the motion should be denied.
The Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. The court agreed with the magistrate judge's well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that the motion should not be granted.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to magistrate judge recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Holden initiated a legal action against Defendant Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. (SST). SST moved to compel arbitration of the disput…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 36] on Defendant SST's Motion to Compel Arbitration [DE 13] and Defendant's Objections [DE 37]. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's Objections [DE 38]. In his thorough and wellreasoned Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hunt recommends that Defendant SST's Motion to Compel Arbitration be DENIED.
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).
The Court, having considered Judge Hunt's Report, Defendant's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Hunt's well-reasoned analysis and his recommendation that the Motion to Compel Arbitration be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to District Judge [DE 36] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2. Defendant SST's Motion to Compel Arbitration [DE 13] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on this 26th day of August 2025.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record