ARAGON

v.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis (the “Report”) regarding Defendant CTF BM Operations Ltd.’s (“CTF”) Motion to Dismiss and the Joint Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment and Garnishment filed by NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., NCL Corp. Ltd., Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., and Celebrity Cruises Inc. (collectively, “Garnishees”). [ECF Nos. 58, 59, 86]. On July 10, 2025, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that the Joint Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment and Garnishment be denied without prejudice. [ECF No. 86]. On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 87]. On July 23, 2025, Defendant CTF timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 88]. On July 24, 2025, Garnishees timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 89].

On July 25, 2025, the Court issued an Order directing Defendants NCL (Bahamas) LTD. (“NCL”) and CTF to respond to Plaintiff's objection by August 1, 2025, regarding whether the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III, V, VII, and X if the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's other claims. [ECF No. 90]. On July 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to CTF and Garnishees' Objections. [ECF No. 92]. On August 1, 2025, Defendants submitted oppositions to Plaintiff's objections. [ECF Nos. 95, 96].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Report, the Motions, the parties' objections, and oppositions. The Court agrees with Judge Louis' well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part, and that the Joint Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment and Garnishment should be denied without prejudice.

Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 86], is ADOPTED in full.

(2) Defendant CTF's Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 59], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts III, V, VII, and X of the Amended Complaint, and those Counts are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Motion is otherwise denied.

(3) Garnishees' Joint Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment and Garnishment [ECF No. 58], is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of August 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE