BANCOR GROUP INC.
v.
RODRIGUEZ
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 commercial dispute, Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing that Plaintiffs were judicially estopped from owning shares in a bank. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the motion, finding that Defendants waived their standing argument and that judicial estoppel did not bar Plaintiffs' ownership claim.
The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, adopting the magistrate judge's finding that defendants waived their right to raise the judicial estoppel argument and that even if not waived, plaintiffs are not judicially estopped from owning their bank shares.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific objections are made de novo.
[2] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made 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 intelligenceBancor Group Inc. and related plaintiffs sued Gabina Rodriguez and other defendants in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants raised an affirmat…
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 Judicial Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based [on] Lack of Article III Standing or in the Alternative for an Order to Show Cause (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 417]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, 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. 9]. On January 1, 2024, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 444]. Defendants have objected to the Report, [ECF Nos. 451], and Plaintiffs have responded to Defendants' objections. [ECF No. 453].
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).
In his Report, Judge Torres finds that (1) Defendants waived any right to raise their lack of standing based on judicial estoppel argument and (2) even if Defendants had not waived the issue, Plaintiffs are not judicially estopped from owning their shares in the bank. [ECF No. 44]. The Court has reviewed the Report and the objections and has conducted a de novo review of the record. The Court agrees with Judge Torres's finding that the Motion should be denied.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 444], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based [on] Lack of Article III Standing or in the Alternative for an Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 417], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 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)