MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PLYMOUTH PLAZA, LLC.
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing certain counts with prejudice.
Plaintiff Mt. Hawley Insurance Company sued Defendant Plymouth Plaza, LLC. The case involved a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defenda…
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin- Birch’s Report and Recommendation (DE 69) (“Report”) on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 42) (“Motion”).
In the Report, Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion (DE 42).
Specifically, the Report finds whether Plaintiff’s claims are analyzed under Florida or New York law, Plaintiff cannot recoup its settlement payment or defense costs incurred in the ultimate resolution of the Florida state court proceeding between Defendant and Mitchel Klock’s estate. (DE 69 at 9–22.) The Report recommends that the Court not dismiss Count I but dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff’s Corrected Second Amended Complaint (DE 38). (DE 69 at 22.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report (DE 75), to which Defendant filed a Response (DE 79).1 Defendant filed Objections to the Report
However, it is well settled that an objecting party may not “submit [] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when (DE 76), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (DE 80). The Court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Plaintiff and Defendant objected and a review of the remainder of the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the Report, the Objections, the record, and applicable law, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report (DE 69) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.
3. Count II, Count Ill, Count IV, and Count V of Plaintiffs Corrected Second Amended Complaint (DE 38) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November, 2023.
[...] ane,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
they file objections to a [Report].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)).