WEISE
v.
BLUE LINE LAW FIRM PLLC
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss against Defendant Blue Line Law Firm PLLC. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the motion be granted…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 72(B)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 45 pp. 1–7], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 45] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 38] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. a. Plaintiff's individual claims may proceed. b. Plaintiff's collective action claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
3. On or before February 19, 2024, Plaintiff shall either (1) file a Notice indicating its intent to proceed with the individual claims in the Complaint, consistent with the reasoning set forth in the Report; or (2) file an Amended Complaint with additional facts supporting a collective action. This will be Plaintiff's final opportunity to plead a collective action claim.
2
CASE NO. 22-81549-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of January 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
3
[fn 1]: The parties filed Notices informing the Court that neither party intended to object [ECF Nos. 46, 47].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)