SILBERMAN
v.
PREMIER BEAUTY AND HEALTH 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 affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying all parties' motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. A Magistrate Judge reviewed these motions and recommended denial of all of them. P…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
and AMJ MISIL AB LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v. PREMIER BEAUTY AND HEALTH LLC, JORGE HANE, and FLORENCIA HANE,
Defendants. ________________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgement (the “Report”). [ECF No. 364]. On February 15, 2023, Defendants Premier Beauty and Health LLC, Jorge Hane, and Florencia Hane filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VIII of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. [ECF No. 264]. On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff AMJ Misil AB LLC (“AMJ”) filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 268]. On April 13, 2023, AMJ was granted leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 315], which it filed on April 19, 2023, [ECF No. 316]. On April 10, 2023, the case was referred to Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 309]. Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, AMJ’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and AMJ’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 364]. On September 14, 2023, AMJ filed its Corrected Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.1 [ECF No. 366]. Defendants did not timely object to the Report, so their objections will not be considered. [ECF No. 367].
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, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Otazo- Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the matters must be denied.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) AMJ Misil AB LLC’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 365], and Corrected Objections to Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Report and Recommendation Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 366], are OVERRULED;
Df
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI CT 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)