ROSH CHODESH II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
v.
WIMPFHEIMER
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 adopted a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting a motion to dismiss filed by Madison Gold LLC and related defendants, while denying as moot a separate motion to dismiss filed by East Hudson Capital and White Road Capital.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP, and denied as moot the motion to dismiss filed by East Hudson Capital, LLC and White Road Capital LLC.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports and recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves motions to dismiss a Second Amended Complaint. Two separate sets of defendants filed motions to dismiss: Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. W…
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 Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP, [ECF No. 72] (“Madison Gold's Motion to Dismiss”) and the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants East Hudson Capital, LLC and White Road Capital LLC [ECF No. 71] (“East Hudson's Motion to Dismiss”). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 48]. On February 4, 2025, she issued her report recommending that Madison Gold's Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that East Hudson's Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot [ECF No. 93]. No objections were filed to 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).
This Court finds no clear error with Judge Louis's well-reasoned analysis and agrees with her conclusion that Madison Gold's Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that East Hudson's Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 93], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP is
GRANTED.
(3) The Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants East Hudson Capital, LLC and White Road Capital LLC is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of February, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)