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.
In this action brought by Rosh Chodesh II Limited Partnership against multiple defendants, the court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting defendants' joint motion to dismiss. The court found proper exercise of personal jurisdiction but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, resulting in dismissal without prejudice.
The court granted defendants' joint motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court found that personal jurisdiction over the moving defendants was proper and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific objections are made de novo.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed by the district court only for clear error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosh Chodesh II Limited Partnership filed suit against defendants Madison Gold LLC, Jan S. Wimpfheimer, and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates LLP. The …
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.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 30] filed by Defendants Madison Gold, LLC (“Madison Gold”), Jan S. Wimpfheimer (“Wimpfheimer”), and Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates, LLP’s (“SWA”) (together, the “Moving Defendants”). [ECF No. 30]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 53]. On February 27, 2024, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Moving Defendants’ Motion be granted and that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice (the “Report”). [ECF No. 57]. The Moving Defendants objected to the Report, but only as to the Report’s findings regarding personal jurisdiction. [ECF No. 58]. No other party filed objections.
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).
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants was proper, that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted without prejudice, and that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Louis’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 57], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 30], is GRANTED; and
(3) This action is closed for administrative purposes.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of February, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)